Speeches of 
A^illiam Jennings Bryan 

VOLUME I 



V 




Photograph by Walinger, unicago 



rf%Z^ Olajla-^JXaaAaA.^^ /U/VU 



Cty^< 



7 •^■" 

Speeches of 
William Jennings Bryan 

Revised and Arranged by Himself 



WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION 
BY MARY BAIRD BRYAN, HIS WIFE 



In Two Volumes 
VOLUME I 



264 



FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY 

NEW YORK and LONDON 
1913 



3"^ 



% 



COPTRIGHT, 1909, BT 
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN 
Printed in the United States of America 
Published November, 1909. 



I do not know 
Where falls the seed that I have tried to sow 

With greatest care ; 

But ! shall know 
The meaning of each waiting hour below 

Some time, somewhere ! 

— Rev. F. S. Browning, 



CONTENTS 

VOLUME I 

PAGE 

BioGEAPuicAL Introduction xi 

SPEECHES ON TAXATION AND EIMETALISM 



I. The TarifE (1892) . 

II. Bimetalism (1893) . 

III. tJnconditional Repeal (1893) 

IV. An Income Tax (1894) . 
V. The Omnivorous West (1894) 

VI. Money (1S94) . 

VII. In the Chicago Convention (1S96) 

VIII. The Silver Question (1896) 

IX. The Tariff (1908) . . . 

X. The Liquor Question in Nebraska 



3 

78 
146 
159 
180 
191 
238 
250 
291 
323 



V'l 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION 

Within the last few years Mr. Bryan has corre- 
sponded with a number of persons bearing the 
family name. Some of the Bryans trace their 
ancestry to Ireland, some to Wales, while others 
have followed the name through Irish into English 
history. A biographical sketch written under the 
supervision of ^iias L. Bryan states that the family 
is of Irish extraction. 

William Bryan, who lived in Culpeper County, 
Virginia, considerably more than one hundred 
years ago, is the first ancestor whose name is known 
to his descendants. Where he was born, and when, 
is a matter of conjecture. He owned a large tract 
of land among the foothills of the Blue Ridge 
Mountains, near Sperryville. The family name of 
his wife is unknown. There were born to the pair 
five children: James, who removed to Kentucky; 
John, who remained upon the homestead; Aquilla, 
who removed to Ohio; and Francis and Elizabeth, 
about whom nothing is known. 

John Bryan, the second son, was born about 1790, 
and at an early age married Nancy Lillard. The 
Lillard family is an old American family of Eng- 
lish extraction and is now represented by numerous 
descendants scattered over Virginia, Kentucky and 
Tennessee. To John Bryan and wife ten children 

XI 



XII BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

were born, all of whom are deceased. The oldest, 
William, removed to Missouri in early life and 
lived near Troy. John and Howard died in in- 
fancy. Jane married Joseph Cheney and lived at 
Gallipolis, Ohio. Nancy married George Baltzell, 
and lived in Marion County, Illinois. Martha 
married Homer Smith, and lived at Gallipolis, 
Ohio, later removing to Marion County, Illinois. 
The next child, Robert, a physician, was killed in 
a steamboat explosion while yet a young man. 

Silas Lillard, father of William Jennings Bryan, 
was born November 4, 1822, near Sperryville, in 
what was then Culpeper, but is now a part of Rap- 
pahannock County, Virginia. The next child, Rus- 
sell, located at Salem, Illinois. Elizabeth, the 
youngest of the family, married another George 
Baltzell and removed to Lewis County, Missouri. 

About the year 1828 John Bryan removed with 
his family to the western portion of Virginia, in 
what is now West Virginia. His last residence was 
near Point Pleasant, where both he and his wife 
died, the latter in 1834, the former in 1836. 

Silas Lillard Bryan, when still a boy, went West 
and made his home a part of the time with his sis- 
ter, Nancy Baltzell, and a part of the time with his 
brother, William. Pie was ambitious to obtain an 
education, and after making his way through the 
public schools, entered McKendree College, at Leb- 
anon, Illinois, where he completed his course, grad- 
uating with honors, in 1849. Owing to lack of 
means he was occasionally compelled to drop out of 
college for a time and earn enough to continue his 
studies. At first he spent these vacations working 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xin 

as a farm hand, but later, when sufficiently ad- 
vanced in his studies, taught school. After gradua- 
tion he studied law, was admitted to the bar, and, 
at the age of twenty-nine, began practice at Salem, 
Illinois. On November 4th, 1852, he married 
Mariah Elizabeth Jennings. During the same year 
he was elected to the State Senate and served in 
that body for eight years. In 1860 he was elected 
to the circuit bench, and served twelve years. In 
1872 he was nominated for Congress upon the 
Democratic ticket, receiving the endorsement of the 
Greenback party. He was defeated by a plurality 
of 240 by General James Martin, Republican can- 
didate. As a member of the convention of 1872, 
which framed the present Constitution of Illinois, 
he introduced a resolution declaring it to be the 
sense of the convention that all offices, legislative, 
executive and judicial, provided for by the new 
Constitution, should be filled by elections by the 
people. Before his election to the bench, and after 
his retirement therefrom, he practised law in Mar- 
ion and the adjoining counties. He was a member 
of the Baptist Church, the church to which his 
parents belonged, and was a very devout man. He 
prayed at morning, noon and night, and was a firm 
believer in providential direction in the affairs of 
life. 

Silas Lillard Bryan was a man of strong charac- 
ter, stern integrity and high purpose. He took 
rank among the best lawyers in Southern Illinois, 
and was a very graceful and forcible speaker. His 
mind was philosophical and his speeches argumenta- 
tive. In politics he was a Democrat in the broadest 

12 



XIV BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

sense of the word and had an abiding faith in re- 
publican institutions and in the capacity of the 
people for self government. He was a staunch 
defender of higher education and gave financial as 
well as moral support to various institutions of 
learning. He regarded the science of government 
as highly honorable and set apart the guest cham- 
ber of his home for ''politicians and divines." He 
was broad and tolerant in his religious views. It 
was his custom, after he removed to the farm, to 
send a load of hay at harvest time to each preacher 
and priest in Salem. While a public man during a 
large part of his life, he was eminently domestic. 
He died March 30, 1880, and was buried in the 
cemetery at Salem. His will provided that all 
of his children should be encouraged to secure 
"the highest education which the generation af- 
fords." 

The Jennings family has lived so long in America 
that descendants of its pioneers do not know the 
date of their coming to the colonies ; nor is it known 
positively from what country they came; they are 
believed to have been English. Israel Jennings, 
who was born about 1774, is the earliest known an- 
cestor. He was married to Mary Waters about 
1799, and lived in Mason County, Kentucky. In 
1818 he moved with his family to Walnut Hill, 
Marion County, Illinois, where his wife died in 
1844 and he in 1860. He was the father of eight 
children: Israel, Jr., George, Charles Waters, of 
whom I shall speak later; William W. ; Elizabeth, 
who married William Davidson ; America, who 
married George Davidson ; IMary, who married Ed- 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xv 

ward White, and Ann, who married Rufus Mc- 
Elwain. All are now dead. 

Charles Waters Jennings was married to Maria 
Woods Davidson, on December 14th, 1826, and es- 
tablished a home adjoining the Israel Jennings 
homestead. He diecv h\ 1872, and his wife in 1885. 
To this pair were bori. eight sons and two daugh- 
ters : Josephus Waters, deceased, who lived near the 
home of his father; Harriet, who married B. F. 
Marshall, of Salem, Illinois, both deceased; Sarah, 
who married Robert D. Noleman, of Centralia, Illi- 
nois, both deceased; Mariah Elizabeth, the mother 
of William Jennings Bryan; America, deceased, 
who married William C. Stites, then of Marion 
County, Illinois; Nancy, who married Dr. James 
A. Davenport and lives at Salem, Illinois; Docia, 
who married A. Van Antwerp, and lives at St. 
Louis, Missouri; and Zadock, who lives near Wal- 
nut Hill. 

Mariah Elizabeth Jennings, Mr. Bryants mother, 
was born near Walnut Hill, Illinois, on May 24th, 
1834. She attended the public schools of the neigh- 
borhood, and when nearly grown was the pupil of 
Silas L. Bryan, who was nearly twelve years her 
senior. At an early age she connected herself with 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, which was the 
church of her parents, and remained a member 
until about 1877, when she united with the Baptist 
Church, at Salem, to which her husband belonged. 
She was a woman of excellent sense and superior 
skill in management. Her husband's frequent ab- 
sence from home threw upon her a large portion of 
the responsibility for the care and discipline of the 



x\i BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

family, and for some years after his death her en- 
tire time was given to the nurture and education 
of the five minor children. When the boys were 
grown she removed from the farm to Salem, and 
became an active worker in her church and in socie- 
ties for social improvement. She always took a 
deep interest in the political fortunes of her son 
William, and for counsel and instruction he has 
always felt indebted to her equally with his father. 
She lived during the later years of her life in a 
home which William bought for her use with the 
first savings from his Congressional salary. After 
a lingering illness, which she bore with great pa- 
tience, she died on the 27th of June, 1896, and was 
laid to rest by the side of her husband. 

To Silas Lillard and IMariah Elizabeth Bryan 
w^ere born nine children. Of these Virginia, John 
and Hiram died in infancy. Russell Jones, born 
June 12th, 1864, died at the age of 17, on the eve 
of his departure for college ; and Nancy Lillard 
died at the age of 34. Four children are now liv- 
ing, namely: Frances Mariah. born March 18th, 
1858; William Jennings, born March 19th, 1860; 
Charles Wayland, born February 10th, 1867 ; Mary 
Elizabeth, born May 14th, 1872. Francis M. 
Bryan (now Baird), lives at Shaw, Mississippi, 
and Charles W. and Mary Elizabeth Bryan (now 
Allen) live in Lincoln, Nebraska. 

The Bryan, Lillard, Jennings and Davidson fami- 
lies all belonged to the middle classes. They were 
industrious, law-abiding. God-fearing people. No 
member of the family ever became very rich, and 
none ever abjectly poor. Farming has been the 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTKODUCTION xvii 

occupation of the majority, while others have fol- 
lowed the legal and medical professions and mercan- 
tile pursuits. 

William Jennings Bryan, as a boy, was sturdy, 
round-limbed and fond of play. There is a tradi- 
tion that his appetite developed very early. The 
pockets of his first trousers were always filled with 
bread, which he kept for an emergency. One of 
the memories belonging to this period is that he 
was ambitious to be a minister, but this soon gave 
place to a desire to be a farmer, and that to a deter- 
mination to become a lawyer "like father." This 
purpose became the controlling one, and his educa- 
tion was directed toward that end. 

Mr. Bryan's father purchased a farm of five 
hundred acres, one mile from the village, and vrhen 
William was six years old the family removed to 
this new home. Here he studied, worked and 
played, until ten years of age, his mother being his 
teacher. He learned to read quite early. After 
committing lessons to memory he would stand upon 
a little table and speak them to his mother. This 
was his first recorded effort at speech-making. His 
work was to feed the deer which his father kept in 
a small park, and help care for the horses, cows, 
pigs and chickens; in short the variety of work 
known as "doing chores." His favorite sport was 
rabbit hunting with dogs. I am not sure that 
these expeditions were harmful to the game, 
but they have furnished his only fund of hunt- 
ing adventures for the amusement of our chil- 
dren. 

At the age of ten W^illiam entered the public 



xvni BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

school at Salem. During his five years* attendance 
he was not an especially brilliant pupil, tho he 
never failed in examinations. In connection with 
his studies he developed an interest in the work of 
literary and debating societies. His father's Con- 
gressional campaign in 1872 led to his first political 
awakening. From that time he always cherished 
the thought of entering public life. His idea was 
first to win a reputation and secure a competency 
at the bar, and then to enter politics, but he seized 
an unexpected opportunity which came to him in 
1890. 

At fourteen Mr. Bryan became a member of the 
Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Later he joined 
the First Presbyterian Church at Jacksonville, Illi- 
nois, and upon our removal to Nebraska, brought 
his "letter" to the First Presbyterian Church of 
Lincoln, and later took his "letter" to the West- 
minster Presbyterian Church of the same city, to 
which he still belongs. As a matter of convenience, 
however, he and his family attend the Normal 
Methodist Church near his farm. 

At fifteen Mr. Bryan entered Whipple Academy, 
the preparatory department of Illinois College, at 
Jacksonville, and with this step a changed life be- 
gan. Vacation found him at home, but for eight 
years he led the life of a student, and then took up 
the work of his profession. Six years of his school 
life were spent in Jacksonville, in the home of Dr. 
Hiram K. Jones, a relative. The atmosphere of this 
home had its influence upon the growing lad. Dr. 
Jones was a man of strong character, of scholarly 
tastes, and of high ideals, and during the existence 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xix 

of the Concord School of Philosophy was a lecturer 
upon Platonic Philosophy. Dr. Jones's wife, too, 
was a woman of rare attainments, and having no 
children, they gave the youth a home in the fullest 
sense of that word. 

Mr. Bryan's parents wished him to take a classi- 
cal course and while sometimes he grumbled over 
his Latin and Greek, he has since recognized the 
wisdom of their choice. Of these two languages, 
Latin was his favorite. He had a strong preference 
for mathematics, and especially for geometry, and 
has believed that the mental discipline acquired in 
this study has since been useful in argument. He 
was also an earnest student of political economy. 
This entrance into college life brings to mind an 
incident which shows both the young man's rapid 
growth and his father's practical views. During 
the first year of his absence from home he discov- 
ered, as his holidays drew near, that his trousers 
were becoming too short, and wrote home for money 
to buy a new pair. His father responded that, as 
it was so near vacation, he need not make any 
purchase until he reached home, and added : ^ ' My 
son, you may as well learn now, that people will 
measure you by the length of your head, rather 
than by the length of your breeches." 

In college athletics, while he played very little at 
baseball or football, he was fond of foot-racing and 
jumping. Three years after graduation, on Osage 
Orange Day, he won a medal for the broad or stand- 
ing jump, in a contest open to students and alumni. 
The medal records twelve feet and four inches as 
the distance covered. 



^ 



XX BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

A prize contest always fired Mr. Brj^an's ambi- 
tion. It may interest boys who read these pages 
to know of his record then in contest, and to note 
his gradual rise. During his first year at the Acad- 
emy he declaimed Patrick Henry's masterpiece and 
not only failed to win a prize, but ranked well down 
in the list. Nothing daunted, the second year found 
him again entered with ''The Palmetto and the 
Pine" as his subject. This time he ranked third. 
The next year, when a Freshman, he tried for a 
prize in Latin prose, and won half the second 
prize. Later in the year he declaimed ''Bernardo 
del Carpio," and gained the second prize. In his 
Sophomore year he entered another contest, with 
an essay on the not altogether novel subject, *' La- 
bor." This time the first prize rewarded his work. 
In the Junior year an oration on *' Individual 
Power" gave Jiini the first prize. A part of this 
prize was a volume of Bryant's poems. Mr. Bryan 
afterwards gave me this book, his first gift, because 
it contained his favorite poem, ** An Ode to a Water- 
fowl, ' ' which concludes : 

He who, from zone to zone. 

Guides through the boundless sky thy certain flight, 
In the long way that I must tread alone, 

Will lead my steps aright. 

The winning of the Junior prize entitled him to 
represent Illinois College in the intercollegiate ora- 
torical contest which was held at Galesburg. Illinois, 
in the fall of 1880. His oration was on ' ' Justice, ' ' 
and was awarded the second prize of fifty dollars. 
Gen. John C. Black, of Illinois, was one of the 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxi 

judges in this contest and marked ^Ir. Bryan one 
hundred in delivery. Upon invitation of Mr. Black, 
the young man called on him at his hotel and re- 
ceived many valuable suggestions on the art of 
speaking. At the time of graduation he was elected 
class orator and, having the highest rank in schol- 
arship during the four years' course, delivered the 
valedictory. Upon entering the academy he had 
joined the Sigma Pi society, and was an active 
member for six years, profiting much by the train- 
ing in essay, declamation and debate. 

My personal knowledge of ^Ir. Bryan dates from 
September, 1879. He was then entering his Junior 
year. At the risk of departing from the purpose of 
this biography, I shall speak of my first impres- 
sions. I saw him first in the parlors of the young 
ladies * school which I attended in Jacksonville. He 
entered the room with several other students, was 
taller than the rest, and attracted my attention at 
once. His face was pale and thin ; a pair of keen, 
dark eyes looked out from beneath heavy brows; 
his nose was prominent — too large to look well, I 
thought ; a broad, thin-lipped mouth and a square 
chin, completed the contour of his face. He was 
neat, though not fastidious in dress, and stood 
firmly and with dignity. I noted particularly his 
hair and his smile, the former black in color, plen- 
tiful (it is thinner now), fine in quality, and parted 
distressingly straight; the latter, expansive and 
expressive. In later years his smile has been the 
subject of considerable comment, but the well- 
rounded cheeks of Mr. Bryan now cheek its onward 
march. No one has seen the real breadth of his 



XXII BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

smile who did not see it in tiie early days. Upon 
one occasion, a heartless observer was heard to re- 
mark, * ' That man can whisper in his own ear, ' ' but 
this was a cruel exaggeration. 

During the summer of 1880 Mr. Bryan was 
hooked for his first political meeting. I record the 
details of this gathering for the encouragement of 
young speakers. He was to make a Democratic 
speech at a farmer's picnic near Salem, and the 
bills announced two other speakers, Mr. Bryan 
standing third on the list. On reaching the grove 
he found the two speakers an*d an audience of four, 
namely, the owner of the grove, one man in control 
of a wheel of fortune, and two men in charge of a 
lemonade stand. After waiting an hour for an 
audience which failed to come, the meeting ad- 
journed sine diey and Mr. Bryan went home. Later 
in the fall, however, he made four speeches for Han- 
cock and English, the first being delivered in the 
court house at Salem. 

The graduating exercises of Illinois College oc- 
curred in June, 1881. Mr. Bryan's oration and 
valedictory address will be found in this collection 
of speeches. When the autumn came he entered 
the Union College of Law at Chicago. Out of 
school hours his time was spent in the office of ex- 
Senator Lyman Trumbull, who had been a political 
friend of Mr. Bryan's father. This acquaintance, 
together with the fact that a warm friendship ex- 
isted between Mr. Bryan and his law school class- 
mate, Henry Trumbull, the judge's son, led to the 
establishment of a second foster home — a home in 
which he and his family ever found a cordial 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxiii 

welcome. In this home, then lately bereft of its 
head, he spent his first Sabbath after the Chicago 
Democratic National Convention of 1896. 

Mr. Bryan ranked well in the law school, taking 
an especial interest in constitutional law. He was 
connected with the debating society of the college, 
and took an active part in its meetings. At gradu- 
ation his thesis was a defense of the jury system. 
His first fee was earned in the County Court at 
Salem. 

To these years of study belong many things which 
are of interest to us, but which are too trivial for 
the public eye. I shall venture upon one, how- 
ever. Many people have remarked upon the fond- 
ness which Mr. Bryan shows for quoting Scripture. 
This habit is one of long standing, as the follow- 
ing circumstance shows. The time came when it 
seemed proper to have a little conversation with 
my father and this was something of an ordeal, as 
my father was a rather reserved man. In his dilem- 
ma, William sought refuge in the Scriptures, and 
began: *'Mr. Baird, I have been reading Proverbs 
a good deal lately, and find that Solomon says: 
'Whoso findeth a wife, findeth a good thing, and 
obtaineth favour of the Lord!' '' Father, being 
something of a Bible scholar himself, replied : * ' Yes, 
I believe Solomon did say that, but Paul suggests 
that, while he that marrieth doeth well, he that 
marrieth not doeth better." This was dishearten-^ 
ing, but the young man saw his way through. 
"Solomon," he rejoined, "would be the better 
authority upon this point, because Paul was never 
married, while Solomon had a number of wives." 



XXIV BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

After this friendly tilt the matter was satisfactorily 
arranged.* 

On July 4, 1883, Mr. Bryan began the practise of 
his profession in Jacksonville. Desk room was ob- 
tained in the office of Brown & Kirby, one of the 
leading firms in the city, and the struggle encoun- 
tered by all young professional men began. The 
first six months were rather trying to his patience, 
and he was compelled to supplement his earnings 
by a small advance from home. Toward the close 
of the year he entered into correspondence with his 
former law school classmate, Henry Trumbull, then 
located at Albuquerque, New Mexico, and discussed 
with him the advisability of removing to that Terri- 



* Readers will like to have printed here a note, obtained 
by tJie publisher, as to the lady whom Mr. Bryan married. 
Mary Baird Bryan was the only child of John and Lovina 
Baird. John Baird was a prosperous merchant of Perry, 
Illinois. Mrs. Bryan was born June 17, 1861. After a 
course in the public schools she attended for one year 
Monticello Seminary, at Godfrey, Illinois, and for two years 
the Presbyterian Academy at Jacksonville, Illinois, gradu- 
ating from the latter institution with first honors in June, 
1881. She has continued her studies since graduation, giv- 
ing special attention to German. After her marriage, in 
1884, she read law, with her husband as instructor, taking 
the course prescribed in the Union College of Law of Chi- 
cago. She was admitted to practise in the Supreme Court 
of Nebraska in November, 1888. This course of study was 
not taken up with a view to entering practise, but in order 
to put herself in closer relations with her husband, to whom 
she has been a real helpmeet in every sense of the term. 
He has often acknowledged his indebtedness to her for con- 
stant and valuable assistance in his work. She is devoted 
to her home, and to her children has been both mother and 
companion. She became a member of the Methodist Church, 
the church of her parents, in early life, but after her mar- 
riage took a "letter" to the Presbyterian Church. 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTIOiN xxv 

tory. After the 1st of January, however, clients 
became more numerous, and he felt encouraged to 
make Jacksonville his permanent home. The fol- 
lowing spring he took charge of the collection de- 
partment of Brown & Kirby's office, and in a little 
more than a year his income seemed large enough 
to support two. During the summer of 1884 a 
modest home was planned and built, and on Octo- 
ber 1, 1884, we were married. 

During the next three years we lived comfort- 
ably, tho economically, and laid by a small amount. 
Politics lost none of its charms, and each campaign 
found Mr. Bryan speaking, usually in our own 
county. Three years after graduation he attended 
the commencement at Illinois College, delivered 
the Master's oration, and received the degree. His 
subject on that occasion was ''American Citizen- 
ship." In the summer of 1887 legal business called 
him to Kansas and Iowa, and a Sabbath was spent 
in Lincoln, Nebraska, with a law school classmate, 
Hon. A. R. Talbot. 

Mr. Bryan was greatly imprest with the beauty 
and business enterprise of Lincoln, and with the ad- 
vantages which a growing capital furnishes for a 
young lawyer. He returned to Illinois full of 
enthusiasm for the West, and perfected plans for 
our removal thither. No political ambitions entered 
into this change of residence, as the city, county 
and State were strongly republican. He arrived 
in Lincoln, October 1, 1887, and a partnership was 
formed with Mr. Talbot. As Mr. Bryan did not 
share in the salary which Mr. Talbot received as a 
railroad attorney, he had to begin again at the 



XXVI BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

bottom of the ladder. During this winter our 
daughter Ruth and I remained in Jacksonville. 
In the following spring a second house was built 
at 1625 D street, and the family was reunited in its 
Western home. The practise again became suffi- 
cient for our needs, and during the three years 
which followed we were again able to add to our 
reserve fund. I might here suggest an answer to a 
hostile criticism, namely, that Mr. Bryan did not 
distinguish himself as a lawj^r. Those who thus 
complain should consider that he entered the prac- 
tise at twenty-three and left it at thirty-one, and 
during that period began twice, and twice became 
more than self-supporting. At the time of his 
election to Congress his practise was in a thriving 
condition, and fully equal to that of any man of 
his age in the city. 

Mr. Bryan often met such demands as are com- 
monly made upon lawyers in the way of short ad- 
dresses, toasts, etc. Some of this post-prandial 
oratory was employed in the discussion of questions 
of public importance. The following was a toast 
upon ''The Law and the Gospel," delivered in the 
spring of 1890 at a banquet given by the St. Paul 
Methodist Church of Lincoln, in honor of some 
distinguished visitors : 

It is rather by accident than by design that this senti- 
ment has fallen to me. Had not my law partner been 
called unexpectedly from the State he would have responded 
with more propriety and more ability to "The Law and 
the Gospel." 

These are important words ; each covers a wide field by 
itself and tosrether they include all government. Th^re is 
not between them, as some suppose, a wide gulf fixt. ]Many 
have commenced with us only to be called to a higher sphere, 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxvii 

and a few ministers have come to us when they were con- 
vinced that they had answered to another's call. 

In the earlier days the prophet was also the lawgiver. 
He who wore the priestly robe held in his hands the scales 
of justice. But times are changed. For the good of the 
State and for the welfare of the church, the moral and the 
civil law have been separated. To-day we owe a double 
allegiance, and "render unto Caesar the things that 
are Caesar's, and unto God the things that arp 
God's." Their governments are concentric circles and 
can never interfere. Between what religion commands 
and what the law compels there is, and ever must be, 
a wide margin, as there is also between what religion 
forbids and what the law prohibits. In many things we 
are left to obey or disobey the instructions of the Divine 
Ruler, answerable to Him only for our conduct. The 
gospel deals with the secret purposes of the heart as well 
as with the outward life, while the civil law must content 
itself with restraining the arm outstretched for another's 
hurt or with punishing the offender after the injury is 
done. 

Next to the ministry, I know of no more noble profession 
than the law. The object aimed at is justice, equal and 
exact, and if it does not reach that end at once it is because 
the stream is diverted by selfishness or checked by igno- 
rance. Its principles ennoble and its practise elevates. If 
you point to the pettifogger, I will answer that he is as 
much out of place in the temple of justice as is the hypo- 
crite in the house of God. You will find the "book on tricks" 
in the library of the legal bankrupt — nowhere else. In no 
business in life do honesty, truthfulness and uprightness of 
conduct pay a larger dividend upon the investment than in 
the law. He is not only blind to his highest welfare and 
to his greatest good, but also treading upon dangerous 
ground, who fancies that mendacity, loquacity and perti- 
nacity are tlie only accomplishments of a successful lawyer. 

YoTi cannot judge a man's life by the success of a moment, 
by the victory of an hour, or even by the results of a year. 
You must view his life as a whole. You must stand where 
you can see the man as he treads the entire path that leads 
from the cradle to the grave — now crossing the plain, now 
climbing the steeps, now passing througli pleasant fields, 
now wending his way with difficulty between rugged rocks 
— tempted, tried, tested, triumphant. The completed life 
of every lawyer, either by its success or failure, emphasizes 



xxvm BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

the words of Solomon — "The path of the just is as a shiDing 
light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day," 

By practising upon the highest plane the lawyer may 
not win the greatest wealth, but he wins that which wealth 
cannot purchase and is content to know and feel that "a 
good name is rather to be chosen than great riches ; and 
loving favor rather than silver and gold." 

There are pioneers of the gospel whose names you speak 
with reverence, Calvin, Knox, the Wesleys and Asburj^ 
besides many still living, and you loTe them not wirhout 
cause. There are those in our profession whom we delight 
to honor. Justinian and Coke, Blackstone and Jay, Mar- 
shall and Kent, Story and Lincoln, men who have stood in 
the thickest of the fight, have met every temptation peculiar 
to our profession, and yet maintained their integrity. 

It is a fact to which we point with no little pride, that 
with a history of a hundred years no member of the Supreme 
Court of the United States has ever been charged with 
♦corrupt action altho untold millions have been involved 
in the litigation before the court. Nor do I now recall 
any member of the supreme court of any State who has 
been convicted of misusing his oiBce. 

"The Law and the Gospel." Great in their honored 
names, great in their history, great in their influence. To 
a certain extent they supplement each other. The law 
asks of the gospel counsel, not commands. The gospel goes 
far beyond the reach of law, for while the law must cease 
to operate when its subject dies, the gospel crosses the 
dark river of death and lightens up the world which lies 
beyond the tomb. The law is negative, the gospel positive ; 
the law says "do not unto others that which you would 
not have others do unto you," while the gospel declares that 
we should "do to others that which we would that others 
should do unto us." 

"The Law and the Gospel." They form an exception 
to the rule that in union there is strength, for each is 
strongest when alone. And I believe that the greatest pros- 
perity of the State and greatest growth of the church will 
be found when the law and the gospel walk, not hand in 
hand but side by side. 

Mr. Bryan became actively connected with the 
Democratic organization in Nebraska immediately 
after coming to the State, his first political speech 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxi:{ 

of importance being made at Seward in the spring 
of 1888. Soon afterward he went as a delegate to 
the State Convention ; this gave him an acquaint- 
ance with the leading Democrats of the State and 
resulted in a series of speeches. He made a canvass 
of the First Congressional district that fall in be- 
half of Hon. J. Sterling Morton, and also visited 
some thirty counties throughout the State. Mr. 
Morton was defeated by thirty-four hundred, the 
district being normally republican. 

When the campaign of 1890 opened there seemed 
small hope of carrying the district and there was 
but little rivalry for the nomination. Mr. Bryan 
was selected without opposition, and at once began 
a vigorous campaign. An invitation to joint de- 
bate was issued by his committee and accepted by 
his opponent, Hon. W. J. Connell, of Omaha, who 
then represented the district. These debates ex- 
cited attention throughout the State. I have always 
regarded the first debate of this series as marking 
an important epoch in Mr. Bryan 's life. The meet- 
ing took place in Lincoln. I had never before seen 
Mr. Bryan so pre-occupied and so intent on making 
his effort acceptable. He had the opening and the 
closing speeches. The hall was packed with 
friends of both candidates and applause was quite 
evenly divided until the closing speech. I dare not 
describe this scene as it stands out in my memory. 
The people had not expected such a summing-up 
of the discussion ; each sentence contained an argu- 
ment ; the audience was surprised, pleased and en- 
thusiastic. The occasion was a Chicago convention 
in miniature, and delighted Mr. Bryan's support- 

13 



XXX BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

ers. In addition to these eleven joint contests, Mr. 
Bryan made a thorough canvass, speaking about 
eighty times and visiting every city and village in 
the district. Tho these debates were crisp and 
sharp in argument, they were marked by the utmost 
friendliness between the opponents. At the close 
of the last debate, Mr. Bryan presented Mr. Con- 
nell a copy of Gray 's Elegy in a brief speech which 
will be found in this collection. 

When the returns were all in, it was found that 
Mr. Bryan was elected by a plurality of 6,713. De- 
siring to give his entire time to his Congressional 
work, he, soon after election, so arranged his affairs 
as to retire from practise, altho retaining a nominal 
connection with the firm. 

In the speakership caucus with which Congress 
opened, Mr. Bryan supported Mr. Springer, in 
whose district we had lived when at Jacksonville ; 
in the House, he voted for Mr. Crisp, the caucus 
nominee, and in the Fifty-third Congress voted for 
Mr. Crisp both in the caucus and in the House. 
Mr. Springer was made chairman of the Conmiit- 
tee on Ways and Means, and it was largely through 
his influence that Mr. Bryan was given a place 
upon that committee. His first speech of conse- 
quence was the tariff speech of March 16, 1892. 
This was the second important event in his career 
as a public speaker. The place which he held upon 
the Ways and Means Committee is rarely given to 
a new member, and he wished the speech to justify 
the appointment. It is perhaps unnecessary for 
me to comment at length upon the reception ac- 
corded this speech, as the press at the time gave 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxi 

such reports that the occasion will probably be re- 
membered by those who read this sketch. 

This speech increased his acquaintance with pub- 
lie men, and added to his strength at home. More 
than one hundred thousand copies were circulated 
by members of Congress. 

Upon his return to Nebraska he was able to secure 
reelection in a new district (the State having been 
reapportioned in 1891) which that year gave the 
Republican State ticket a plurality of 6,500. His 
opponent this time was Judge A. W. Field, of our 
own city. The Democratic committee invited the 
Republicans to join in arranging a series of debates, 
and this invitation was accepted. This was even a 
more bitter contest than the campaign of 1890, 
Mr. McKinley, Mr. Foraker and others being called 
to Nebraska to aid the Republican candidate. Be- 
sides the eleven debates, which aroused much enthu- 
siasm, Mr. Bryan again made a thorough canvass 
of the district. The victory was claimed by both 
sides until the Friday following the election, when 
the result was determined by official count, Mr. 
Bryan receiving a plurality of 140. 

In the Fifty-third Congress Mr. Bryan was reap- 
pointed upon the Ways and Means Committee and 
assisted in the preparation of the Wilson bill. He 
was a member of the sub-committee (consisting of 
Representatives MacMillan, Montgomery and him- 
self) which drafted the income tax portion of the 
bill. In the spring of 1893, through the courtesy 
of the State Department, Mr. Bryan obtained a 
report from the several European nations which 
collect an income tax, and the results of this re- 



XXXII BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

search were embodied in the Congressional Records 
during the debate. He succeeded in having incor- 
porated in the bill a provision, borrowed from the 
Prussian law, whereby the citizens who have tax- 
able incomes make their own returns and those 
whose incomes are within the exemption are re- 
lieved from annoyance. On behalf of the commit- 
tee, Mr. Bryan closed the debate, replying to Mr. 
Cockran with the speech given in this volume. 

During the discussion of the Wilson bill, Mr. 
Bryan spoke in its defense. His principal work of 
the term, however, was in connection with monetary 
legislation. His speech of August 16, 1893, in oppo- 
sition to the unconditional repeal of the Sherman 
law (printed in this volume) brought out even 
more hearty commendation than his first tariff 
speech. Of this effort, it may be said that it con- 
tained the results of three years of study upon the 
money question. While in Congress he made a fruit- 
less effort to secure the passage of the following bill : 

Be it enacted, etc. : That section SOO of the Revised Stat- 
utes of the United States, of 1878, be amended by addin.? 
thereto the words "In civil cases the verdict of three-fourths 
of the jurors constituting the jury shall stand as the verdict 
of the jury, and such a verdict shall have the same force 
and effect as a unanimous verdict." 

The desire to have the law changed so as to per- 
mit less than a unanimous verdict in civil cases, was 
one which he had long entertained. In February, 
1890, in response to a toast at a bar association 
banquet in Lincoln, he spoke upon the jury system, 
advocating the same reform. His remarks were 
as follows : 

One of the questions which has been for some time discust, 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxiii 

and which is now the subject of controversy, is, "Has the 
jury system outlived its usefulness?" 

I think I voice the opinion of most of those present when 
to the question I answer an emphatic No. 

To defend this answer it will not be necessary to recall 
the venerable age of the system, its past achievements, or 
the splendid words of praise which have been uttered in its 
behalf. It finds ample excuse for its existence in the needs 
of to-day. 

The circumstances which called it into life have passed 
away and many of its characteristics have been entirely 
changed, but never, I am persuaded, in the history of the 
English speaking people, has the principle which underlies 
the trial by jury been more imperatively demanded than it 
is to-day. 

This is an age of rapid accumulation of wealth, and the 
multiplication of corporations gives to money an extraardi- 
nary power. 

One million dollars in the hands of one man or one com- 
pany will outweigh, in the political and social world, ten 
times that sum divided among a thousand people. Can 
the temple of justice hope to escape its polluting touch 
without some such barrier as that which the jury system 
raises for its protection? Is there not something significant 
in the direction from which much of the complaint against 
the system comes? 

If the question, "Shall the jury be abandoned or retained?" 
were submitted to a vote, we would find prominent among 
the opposing forces the corporate influences, the wealthy 
classes, and those busy citizens to whom jury service, or 
even the duty of an elector, is a burden. 

While the great mass of its supporters would be found 
among those who are compelled to fight the battle of life 
unaided by those powerful allies — social position, political 
influence and money — men whose only sword is the ballot, 
and whose only shield, the jury. The jury system is not 
perfect — w^e do not look for perfection in government — but 
it has this great advantage, that if the verdict falls to one 
side of the straight line of the law it is usually upon the 
side of the poorest adversary. 

All stand equal before the law, whether they be rich or 
poor, high or low, weak or strong : but no system has yet 
been devised which will insure exact justice at all times 
between man and man. 

We choose not between a perfect system and an imper- 



XXXIV BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

feet one, but between an imperfect system and one more 
imperfect still. And if the scales of justice cannot be per- 
fectly poised, the safety of society demands that they tip 
most easily toward the side of the weak. 

Faith in trial by jury implies no reflection upon the in- 
tegrity of the bench. We recall with pardonable pride the 
names of our illustrious judges whose genius and learning 
have given luster to our professions and whose purity and 
probity have crowned it with glory. 

But they won their distinction in expounding the law and 
left the decision of the facts to those fresh from contact 
with the busy world. 

If to the present duties of the judge we add those now 
discharged by the jury, is it not possible that the selection 
of a judge will be secured because of his known sympathies? 
Will not the standard be so lowered that we may see upon 
the bench an agent instead of an arbiter? 

In what position will the suitor be who finds, when called 
before a biased tribunal, that he has neither peremptory 
challenge nor challenge for cause. No more fatal blow could 
be struck at our national welfare than to give occasion for 
the belief that in our courts a man's redress depends upon 
bis ability to pay for it. 

If the jury can guard the court room from the invasion 
of unfair influences it will be as valuable for what it pre- 
vents as for what it gives. 

Time does not admit of extended reference to those faults 
in the system which givo occasion for just criticism, faults 
which its friends are in duty bound to prune away from it. 
The requirement of an unanimous verdict causes many mis- 
trials. In civil causes, where a decision follows the evi- 
dence, it is difiicult to see why substantial justice would 
not be done by a majority, or, at most, a two-thirds major- 
ity verdict ; but we cannot abandon the old rule in criminal 
cases without trespassing on the sacred right of the accused 
to the benefit of every reasonable doubt ; for a divided jury, 
in itself, raises a doubt as to his guilt. The law recently 
passed making it a misdemeanor for a man to ask for 
appointment as a juror, or for an attorney to seek a place 
for a friend, is a step in the right direction. 

Between a partisan juror and a professional juror it is 
only a choice between evils. If to fill the panel with by- 
standers means to fill it with men standing by for the 
purpose of being called, we are ready for a law which will 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxv 

compel the sheriff to seek talesmen bejoud the limits of the 
court house. Any change, the aim of Avhich is to compel 
the selection of men of ordinary intelligence and approved 
integrity as jurors, will be acceptable to the people. But 
now that all men read the news, the information thus ac- 
quired should no longer render them incompetent for jury 
service. It is a premium upon ignorance which we cannot 
a fiord to pay. Instead of summoning a juryman for a 
whole term we should limit his service to one or two weeks. 
This would lighten the burden without impairing the prin- 
ciple. To that argument, however, which assumes that 
business men can afford no time for jury service there can be 
but one answer, No government can long endure unless its 
citizens are willing to make some sacrifice for its existence. 

In this, our land, we are called upon to give but little 
in return for the advantages which we receive. Shall we 
give that little grudgingly V Our definition of patriotism is 
often too narrow. 

Shall the lover of his country measure his loyalty only 
by his service as a soldier? No! Patriotism calls for the 
faithful and conscientious performance of all of the duties 
of citizenship, in small matters as well as great, at home 
as well as upon the tented field. 

There is no more menacing feature in these modern times 
than the disinclination of what are called the better classes 
to assume the burdens of citizenship. If we desire to pre- 
serve to future generations tjae purity of our courts and 
the freedom of our people, v^ must lose no opportunity to 
impress upon our citizens the fact that above all pleasure, 
above all convenience, above all business, they must place 
their duty to their government; for a good government 
doubles every joy and a bad government multiplies every 
sorrow. Times change but principles endure. The jury 
has protected us from the abuse of power and it is still 
needed. 

While human government exists the tendency to abuse 
power will remain. This system, coming down from former 
generations crowned with the honors of age, is today and 
for the future our hope. 

Let us correct its defects with kindly hands, let us purge 
it of its imperfections and it will be, as in the past, the 
bulwark of our liberties. 

Besides the \\'^rk which I have mentioned, Mr. 

Bryan spoke briefly upon several other questions, 



XXXVI BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

namely, in favor of the election of United States 
Senators by a direct vote of the people, and in 
favor of the anti-option bill; in opposition to the 
railroad pooling bill and against the extension of 
the Pacific liens. In the Fifty-third Congress the 
Democrats adopted a rule which was somewhat simi- 
lar to the one in force under Speaker Reed, pro- 
viding for the counting of a quorum. Mr. Bryan 
opposed this rule, the reasons which he then gave 
in support of his position being set forth in a speech 
which will be found in this collection. 

In the spring of 1894, Mr. Bryan announced that 
he would not be a candidate for reelection to Con- 
gress, and later decided to stand as a candidate for 
the United States Senate. He was nominated for 
that office by the unanimous vote of the Democratic 
State Convention. While the Republicans made no 
nomination, it seemed certain that Mr. Thurston 
would be their candidate and the Democratic com- 
mittee accordingly issued a challenge to him for a 
series of debates. The Republicans were also in- 
vited to arrange a debate between Mr. McKinley 
and Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kinley having at that time an 
appointment to speak in Nebraska. The latter in- 
vitation was declined, but two meetings were ar- 
ranged with Mr. Thurston. These were the largest 
political gatherings that had ever been held in the 
State and were as gratifying to the friends of Mr. 
Bryan as his previous debates. During the cam- 
paign Mr. Bryan made a canvass of the State, 
speaking four or five hours each day, and some- 
times riding thirty miles over rough roads between 
speeches. At the election, Nebraska shared in the 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxvii 

general landslide ; the Republicans had a large ma- 
jority in the Legislature and elected Mr. Thurston. 
This defeat was a disappointment, but it did not 
discourage Mr. Bryan, as is evident from an ad- 
dress to his supporters, extracts from which fol- 
low : 

The Legislature is Republican, and a Republican Senator 
will now be elected to represent Nebraska. This may be I 
mortifying to the numerous chairmen who have introduced 
me to audiences as "the next Senator from Nebraska," but 
it illustrates the uncertainty of prophecies. 

I appreciate more than words can express the cordial good 
will and the loyal support of the friends to whom I am 
indebted for the political honors which I have received. I 
am especially grateful to those who bear without humilia- 
tion the name of the common people, for they have been 
my friends when others have deserted me. I appreciate 
also the kind words of many who have been restrained 
by party ties from giving me their votes. I have been a 
hired man for four years and, now that the campaign is 
closed, I may be pardoned for saying that as a public servant 
I have performed my duty to the best of my ability, and 
am not ashamed of the record made. 

I stept from private life into national politics at the 
bidding of my countrymen ; at their bidding I again take 
my place in the ranks and resume without sorrow the 
work from which they called me. It is the glory of our 
institutions that public officials exercise authority by the 
consent of the governed rather than by divine or hereditary 
right. Paraphrasing the language of Job, each public ser- 
vant can say of departing honors ! The people gave and 
the people have taken away, blessed be the name of the 
people. 

Speaking of my own experience in politics, T may again 
borrow an idea from the great sufferer and say : What, 
shall we receive good at the hands of the people, and shall 
we not receive evil? T have received good even beyond my 
deserts, and I accept defeat without complaint. I ask my 
friends not to cherish resentment against any one who may 
have contributed to the result. 

The friends of these reforms have fought a good fight; 
they have kept the faith, and they will not have finished 



XXXVIII BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

their course until the reforms are accomplished. Let us 
be g:rateful for the proa^ress made, and "with malice toward 
none and charity for all" begin the work of the next cam- 
paign. 

Mr. Bryan received the votes of all the D-^moerats 
and of nearly half of the Populist members. It 
might be suggested here that while Mr. Bryan had 
never received a nomination from the Populist 
party, he had been, since 1892, materially aided by 
individual members of that organization. In Ne- 
braska the Democratic party has generally been 
in the minority, and as there were several points 
of agreement between it and the Populist party, 
Mr. Bryan advocated cooperation between the 
two. In the spring of 1893 he received the sup- 
port of a majority of the Democratic members of 
the Legislature, but, when it became evident that 
no Democrat could be elected, he assisted in the 
-election of Senator Allen, a Populist. Again, in 
1894, in the Democratic State Convention, he aided 
in securing the nomination of a portion of the 
Populist ticket, including Mr. Holcomb, Populist 
candidate for Governor. The cordial relations which 
existed between the Democrats and Populists in 
Nebraska were a potent influence in securing his 
nomination at Chicago. 

On September 1, 1894, Mr. Bryan became chief 
of the editorial staff of the Omaha World-Herald, 
and from that date until the national convention 
of 1896 gave a portion of his time to this work. 
This position enabled him daily to reach a larger 
number of people in the discussion of public ques- 
tions and also added considerably to his income. 
While the contract fixt a certain amount of editorial 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxix 

matter as a minimum, his interest in the work was 
such that he generally exceeded rather than fell 
below the required space. 

After the adjournment of Congress Mr. Bryan, 
on his way home, lectured at Cincinnati, Nashville, 
Tenn., Little Rock, Ark., and at several points in 
Missouri, the beginning of his career as a lecturer, 
arriving in Lincoln March 19, his thirty-fifth birth- 
day. The Jefferson Club tendered him a reception, 
and an opera house packed with an appreciative 
audience rendered this a very gratifying occasion 
to Mr. Bryan. As he was no longer in public life, 
and could show no favors in return, the disinter- 
ested friendship shown will always be remembered 
with pleasure. He chose as his theme, '* Thomas 
Jefferson Still Lives," and, after reviewing the 
work of the Fifty-third Congress, discust at length 
the principles of his patron saint. 

Mr. Bryan intended to resume the practise of 
law and reopen his office. At this time, however, 
the contest for supremacy in the Democratic party 
had begun in earnest and calls for speeches were 
so numerous and so urgent that it seemed best to 
devote his time to lecturing and to the public dis- 
cussion of the money question. In view of the 
suggestions which have been made that Mr. Bryan 
was in the pay of the silver league, I will be par- 
doned for speaking of the earnings during these 
months. His editorial salary formed the basis of 
his income. When lecturing before Chautauqua 
and similar societies he was paid as other lecturers. 
Never at any time was he under the direction of, 
or in the pay of, any silver league or association of 



XL BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

persons pecuniarily interested in silver. During 
the interim between the adjournment of Congress 
and the Chicago convention he spoke in all the 
States of the West and South, and became ac- 
quainted with those most prominently connected 
with the silver cause. 

He spoke on several occasions outside of Con- 
gress, once at the National Cemetery at Arlington. 
May 30, 1894. The scene was impressive and the 
audience representative. President Cleveland and 
four of his Cabinet being in attendance. This 
speech will be found in this collection. 

I shall not discuss the incidents leading up to 
Mr. Bryan's nomination for the Presidency farther 
than to say that, while the nomination was unex- 
pected to the public at large, Mr. Bryan had already 
received a number of letters from delegates suggest- 
ing his nomination. That Mr. Bland, whose lead- 
ership Mr. Bryan followed in Congress, recognized 
Mr. Bryan as an available candidate is shown by 
the following letter: 

Lebanon, Mo., April 28, 1896. ' 

Friend Bryan: 

Yours of the 23d inst., containing report of your con- 
vention, received. I am quite sure your convention would 
have paid you the high compliment you so well deserve 
of indorsing you and recommending your nomination at 
Chicago, but for the fact, as you state in your letter, 
that you yourself intervened to prevent it ; that you 
believe you would be in a better position without indorse- 
ment to fight for the main cause, the adoption of a free 
coinage platform at Chicago. I entertained the same opinion 
myself in Missouri, but was overruled. At the same time, 
I have insisted to now, and shall insist, that nothing shall 
be done in my interest that will in the least degree impede 
or in any manner interfere with the accomplishment of 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xli 

our snccess in wliippin,? Gold Bugs in the matter of plat- 
form in the National Convention. 

I am glad to know that you are going to Iowa and to 
Illinois, as well as to Michigan, I see by the papers that 
Michigan is already sure. I hope you will aid ex-Governor 
Boies in Iowa, for I am taking great interest in that State, 
as well as in the State of Kentucky. If these two States 
go free coinage. I think our victory is assured. If we can 
succeed in adopting a free coinage platform at Chicago, 
there will be no trouble to get a man to fit the platform. 
And whether it should be myself or you or E'x-Govemor 
Boies, or any other, whose record shows that the people 
can expect their will to be carried out by the man elected, 
we will certainly win a great victory at the polls. 

As for myself I have no greater ambition in the matter 
than to see the cause for which I have battled so long 
triumphant, and that I may witness during my lifetime 
beneficial results to the people of my country. 
Sincerely your friend, 

R. P. Bland. 

While Mr. Bryan's nomination has often been 
credited to his speech in the convention, it must 
be remembered that he had been in nearly all of 
the States helpins: to organize the fight, and was 
personally acquainted with a great many dele- 
gates. I recall that he was anxious for me to go to 
the convention because, while he regarded the pros- 
pect of his nomination as remote, he believed that 
the conditions were such as to bring it within the 
range of possibilities. The Populist party and the 
silver Republican party also nominated Mr. Bryan, 
the Silver* Republicans endorsing the Democratic 
candidate for Vice-President, Arthur Sewell, the 
Populist convention nominating Thomas E. Wat- 
son, of Georgia, for the second place. 

The campaign of 1896 was a hotly contested one, 
and Mr. Bryan traveled farther, made more 
speeches and addrest more people than any man 



XLii BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

had ever done before in the same length of time. 
The election showed a rearrangement of the politi- 
cal map. A number of the Western States went 
Democratic for the first time, while the Republi- 
cans carried all the Eastern States by large majori- 
ties. The Republican majority in the Electoral 
College was ninety-five, but there was such a tre- 
mendous increase in the popular vote that, altho 
the Democratic vote was increased about one million 
over the vote of that party in 1892, the Republicans 
had a popular majority of some six hundred thou- 
sand. The vote was so close, however, in a number 
of States that a change of twenty thousand from 
one side to the other, properly apportioned in the 
close States, would have changed the result of the 
election. 

At the close of the campaign Mr. Bryan decided 
to continue his political work instead of returning 
to the law. To practise his profession he would ba 
compelled to disappoint the expectations of those 
who had become his co-workers in the field of poli- 
tics, and he therefore decided to suspend for a while 
longer the practise of law. He returned to the lec- 
ture field, and since then has derived his income 
from his lectures and his writings. It may be 
added, however, that he does not receive compensa- 
tion for political speeches, and that he delivers 
more speeches without remuneration than he does 
for pay. His book, "The First Battle, '* issued 
soon after election, had a large sale. 

On the day that war w^as declared against Spain 
Mr. Bryan sent the following telegram to the Presi- 
dent. 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xi.ni 

April 25, 1898. 
Hon. William McKixley, President. 

My Dear Sir: — I hereby place my services at yoar com- 
mand durinjf the war with Spain and assure you of my 
willini^ness to perform, to the best of my ability, any duty 
to which you, as tlie commander in chief of the army and 
navy, may see fit to assign me. 

Respectfully yours, 

W. J. Bryan. 

Governor Holcomb of Nebraska afterward asked 
him to raise a regiment. A similar invitation was 
received from Governor Stephens of Missouri. JMr. 
Bryan at once responded to Governor Holcomb, and 
in a short time was commissioned as colonel of the 
Third Nebraska Infantry. His regiment was or- 
dered to report to General Fitzhugh Lee, the com- 
mander of the Seventh Army Corps, camped at 
Panama Park, near Jacksonville, Florida. At this 
place, at Pablo Beach, Fla., and at Savannah, Ga., 
Mr. Bryan spent the five months which he devoted 
to military life. He saw no service in the field, but 
the sickness which the men suffered in camp ac- 
quainted him with the fact that even camp life calls 
for sacrifice from the soldier. Mr. Bryan suffered 
from malarial fever and later had a slight attack of 
typhoid. After the suspension of hostilities, and 
while the terms of the treaty were being agreed 
upon, the Government began to dismiss regiments, 
and an inquiry was addrest to Mr. Bryan, as to 
other regimental commanders, asking w^hether his 
regiment desired to be dismissed. Believing that 
the enlisted men as well as the officers should have 
a voice in the decision of this question, he made the 
following reply to the brigade commander : 



XLiv BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Headquaeters 3, Nebraska Yol. Inft. 

Panama Pabk, Aug. 23, 1898. 
To Col. W. H. Montgomery, 
Commanding 1st Brig., 3d Div., 
7th Army Corps, 
Panama Park, Fla. 

Sir: — In reply to your request that I ascertain the senti- 
ment of the 3d Reg. Neb. Vols., respecting future service, I 
have the honor to report that I am not informed as to the 
proper method to be employed in securing an expression 
from the members of the regiment. 

Speaking for myself, I prefer to express no choice as 
to service, but beg to place myself at the disposal of the 
government and to assure the government, through you, 
that I am ready to perform any duties assigned to me. I 
have no doubt that the other officers stand in the same 
attitude. If you desire me to make a canvass, I shall 
promptly ascertain in such manner as you may direct the 
wishes of the officers alone or the sentiment of the entire 
regiment, including enlisted men. 

I have the honor to remain, 

Respectfully, etc., 

W. J. Bryan, 
Col, 3d Neh. Vol 

The information which he asked was never fur- 
nished by the War Department, but the president 
later, acting upon Mr. Bryan's advice, authorized 
him to discharge about a third of the regiment, and 
he, in making the discharges, gave preference, first, 
to married men, second, to sons of widows, and 
third, to families which furnished more than one 
son. As soon as the terms of the treaty were 
agreed upon, Mr. Bryan forwarded his resignation 
to Washington. Below will be found his resigna- 
tion with the endorsement made upon it by his 
superior officers. 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xlv 

Camp Onward. 
Savannah, Ga., Dec. 10, 1898. 
Adjt. Gen. U. S. A., 
Washington, D. C. 

Sir: — The dispatches from Paris announce that the terms 
of the treaty between the United States and Spain have 
been fully agreed upon, and that the Commissioners will 
sign the same as soon as it can be engrossed. 

Believing that, under present conditions, I can be more 
useful to my country as a civilian than as a soldier, I 
hereby tender my resignation, to take effect immediately 
upon its acceptance. 

Respectfully, etc., 

W. J. Bryan, 
Col. 3d Reg., Neh, Vol. Inft. 

Headquarters 1st Brigade, 
1st Div., 7th Army Corps, 
Camp Onward. 

Savannah, Ga., Dec. 10, 1898. 
Respectfully for'd. It is with sincere regret that the 
1st Brigade should lose the services of so efficient an officer. 

W. H. Mabry, 
Col. 1st Texas Vol. Inft., 
Commanding. 

Headquarters 1st Div. 7th A. C, 
Camp Onward. 

Savannah, Ga., Dec. 10, 1898. 
Respectfully forwarded through Headquarters of the A. C. 
It is with regret that this resignation is forwarded approved. 
Col. Bryan's regiment the 3d Neb. Vol. Inft., is in a high 
state of efficiency and discipline, and his efforts for its wel- 
fare and improvement have been untiring. 

Floyd Wheaton, 
Brig. Gen. U S. A., 

Commanding. 

Headquarters U. S. Forces, 
Camp Onward, Savannah, Ga. 
Dec. 10, 1898. 
Respectfully forwarded approved. I deeply regret that 
Col. Bryan is called on to tender his resignation. I concur 
in what is said in the foregoing endorsements. 

J. Warren Keifer, 
Maj. Gen. Commanding. 

14 



XLTi BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Savannah, Ga., Dec. 10, 1898. 
Having turned over the command of the troop here to 
Gen. Keifer, I will not be prevented — as Col. Bryan's for- 
mer commander — on the eve of my departure for Cuba, from 
saying I greatly regret that the Colonel has decided to 
sever his relation with my 7th Corps, for our relations 
have been very agreeable and he has ever been most faith- 
ful and conscientious in all duties confided to him. 

FiTZHUGH Lee, 
Maj.-Gen. U. 8. A. 

The resignation was accepted on the day the 
treaty was signed. It required more courage to 
resign than to enlist, but Mr. Bryan believed, as he 
said in his resignation, that he could be more useful 
to his country as a civilian than as a soldier, and 
he was fortunate in having as Lieut.-Col. of his 
regiment Victor Vifqain, a superb soldier, who 
won the brevet of Brigadier-General in the Civil 
"War. Mr. Bryan at once took up the fight against 
a colonial policy. 

In December, 1903, he made his first trip to 
Europe, taking our son Avith him, and visiting ten 
of the principal capitals. On this trip he called 
upon Tolstoy at his countrj^ home near Moscow, 
and was deeply imprest by his day spent with the 
Russian philosopher. 

He was renominated for President in 1900 by ac- 
clamation (his nomination was again indorsed by 
the Populist and Silver Republicans), and was 
again defeated. Hon. Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illi- 
nois, Vice-President from 1893 to 1897, was his 
running mate. In this campaign some of the 
Western States returned to their allegiance to the 
Republican party, but the Democrats made gains 
in the East. Imperialism was the paramouiijt issue 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xlvii 

in that campaign. Mr. Bryan's speech of accept- 
ance, which will be found in this collection, deals 
with fundamental questions and he regards it as 
one of the most, if not the most, important of his 
political speeches. The total vote cast in 1900 was 
substantially the same as that cast in 1896, the Re- 
publican party gaining about one hundred and fifty 
thousand, and the Democratic party losing about 
that number. 

After the election Mr. Bryan established The 
Commoner, a weekly paper devoted to political sci- 
ence, political economy and sociology. He still con- 
tinues its publication and through it has been able 
to keep in touch with the political thought of the 
country. The more important editorials are re- 
ported to the dailies by wire on the morning the 
paper reaches, its subscribers, while some three 
thousand Democratic papers receive it in exchange. 

Mr. Bryan announced immediately after the elec- 
tion of 1900 that he would not be a candidate in 
1904, but would make no pledge as to the campaigns 
beyond that. He attended the St. Louis Conven- 
tion in 1904 at the head of his State delegation, 
and as a member of the Committee on Resolutions, 
took an active part in the sixteen hours ' session that 
resulted in the presentation of a harmonious plat- 
form. The speech which he delivered at that con- 
vention will be found in this collection, and it sets 
forth his position more elaborately than it can be 
done in this brief sketch. He did not approve of 
the nomination, but he tendered his services to the 
National Committee and through his paper and on 
the stump did what he could for the national ticket. 



XLViii BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

After the election of 1904 it became apparent 
that there was a reaction in favor of the progress- 
ive element of the party. The shrinkage of a mill- 
ion and a quarter in the party vote led many edi- 
tors to predict the nomination of Mr. Bryan in 
1908. Two years later, while Mr. Bryan was out of 
the country, about half of the Democratic State con- 
ventions adopted resolutions urging his candidacy. 

On the 21st day of September, 1905, Mr. Bryan 
and I, accompanied by the two younger children, 
left home for a tour of the world. Leaving San 
Francisco on September 27th we visited Japan, 
Korea, China, the Philippine Islands, Java, India, 
Egypt, the Holy Land, and most of the countries 
of Europe, completing the journey in sixteen days 
less than a year. During the trip Mr. Bryan wrote 
forty-six letters which were published in a syndi- 
cate of dailies and reproduced in The Commoner. 
These letters, together with ten letters written dur- 
ing his former trip to Europe, have since been 
published in a book entitled ''The Old World and 
Its Ways." While on this trip he wrote a little 
book entitled, ''Letters to a Chinese Official," in 
defense of Christian civilization. The book is an 
answer to a book published a few years ago under 
the title of "Letters of a Chinese Official." 

During the progress of this journey we had an 
opportunity to study the customs of the people of 
the various nations, the social conditions existing 
throughout the world, forms of government and 
systems of religion. Mr. Bryan has since drawn 
largely from the fund of information accumulated. 
While in England he attended the Fourth of July 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xlix 

dinner given by the American Society in London 
and also the London session of the Interparliamen- 
tary Union. The speeches which he delivered on 
these occasions will be found in this collection. 

While in Egypt he received and accepted an 
invitation from the officers of the Traveling Men's 
Bryan Club of New York to attend a reception 
which the club desired to give upon his arrival in 
New York. It was supposed at the time that it 
would be like the reception tendered upon his re- 
turn from his first trip to Europe — that is, held in 
one of the hotels and attended by a few friends — 
but the endorsements given by the various States 
had created so much enthusiasm that the reception 
became national instead of local, and was held in 
Madison Square Garden. There was scarcely a 
State that was not represented by prominent Dem- 
ocrats, and many States sent large delegations. 
The speech delivered on this occasion was an out- 
line of the questions which seemed likely to enter 
into the approaching campaign, and was regarded 
as a statement of Mr. Bryan's position upon these 
questions. A brief reference to the subject of gov- 
ernment ownership, however, excited so much com- 
ment that the other questions were to a large ex- 
tent overlooked, and he soon afterwards in a speech 
at Louisville, Ky., answered the misrepresentations 
that had been directed against the reception speech. 
Both of these speeches will be found in this collec- 
tion, as will also the speech delivered at the recep- 
tion tendered him by the people of his home city. 

Mr. Bryan was nominated for the Presidency for 
a third time in 1908. In some States there was a 



L BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

spirited contest for the control of the delegations, 
but on roll call the vote stood about nine to one in 
his favor. Hon. John W. Kern, of Indiana, was 
the nominee for Vice-President, and "Shall the 
people rule?" was declared to be the paramount 
issue in this campaign, altho the tariff question, 
the trust question and the guaranty of bank depos- 
its came in for a large share of consideration. The 
speeches on these subjects, to be found in this col- 
lection, set forth the issues as they were presented. 

For a third time he met defeat. The Republi- 
cans increased their vote about fourteen thousand 
over their vote of 1904, while the Democrats in- 
creased their vote about one million three hundred 
thousand over their vote in that year, and some 
fifty thousand over their vote in 1900. Nebraska, 
after going Democratic in 1896, went Republican in 
1900, but returned to the Democratic column in 
1908, much to the gratification of Mr. Bryan, and 
he found scarcely less satisfaction in the fact that 
he received a majority of 789 in the Republican 
city of Lincoln and carried his voting precinct, his 
county and his Congressional district as well. While 
the local victory did not affect the national result, 
it added to the pleasure of residence here to re- 
ceive so complimentary a vote among those who 
knew him best. 

After the election Mr. Bryan resumed his lec- 
turing and editorial work, devoting himself, as be- 
fore, to the advocacy of the reforms which to him 
seemed desirable, announcing that he hoped that it 
would never become necessary for him to be a can- 
didate for office aarain. 



BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION li 

A word, in closing, about his domestic life. Three 
children have been born into eur family: Ruth 
Baird, October 2, 1885 ; William Jennings, Jr., June 
24, 1889, and Grace Dexter, March 17, 1891. Will- 
iam grows more like his father in appearance while 
Grace's resemblance to me increases. Both are now 
in college. Our eldest daughter, who resembles 
both of us, was married in the fall of 1903 and her 
two children, Ruth and Bradfield Bryan, are re- 
vealing to us the joys and responsibilities of the 
grandparent. 

On the first day of October, 1901, the seventeenth 
anniversary of our marriage and the fourteenth 
anniversary of Mr. Bryan's arrival in Nebraska, 
we broke sod for a new home nearly four miles 
from Lincoln, a little south of east. October 1, 
1902, found the house ready to occupy, and we cele- 
brated that anniversary in it. The house stands 
upon a knoll and the place is called *'Fairview," 
because of the beauty of the valley which the 
house overlooks. Here Mr. Bryan spends the time 
not occupied in traveling and the family enjoys 
the advantages of both the country and the city. 

To give an estimate of Mr. Bryan's character or 
of the mental endowments which he may possess 
would be beyond the scope of this sketch. I have 
contented myself with the simple narration of such 
facts as seemed necessary to an understanding 
of the forty-nine years spanned by his life. 

Mary Baird Bryan. 

Fairview, Lincoln, Neb., March 1st, 1909. 



SPEECHES ON 
TAXATION AND BIMETALISM 



I 

THE TARIFF 

Delivered in Congress on March 16, 1892, in the dis- 
cussion of the tariff measures reported by the Ways and 
Means Committee of which Mr. Bryan was a membor. 
This is known as his first speech in Congress, altho he 
had previously spoken for five minutes on a minor ques- 
tion. The House was then in Committee of the Whole on 
the state of the Union, and had under consideration the bill 
making wool free and reducing the duties on woolen goods. 

THE gentleman from i\laine [Mr. Dingley] 
put forward to open the debate by our 
friends who occupy the wedge-shaped space 
on what used to be called the Republican side, has 
seen fit to criticize as sporadic the bills so far 
reported by the committee. He has also found 
fault with the method which has been adopted. 

I desire to say that I am in hearty sympathy 
with the majority of the committee in its decision 
to attack the tariff in detail ; and I think that the 
bills which have been reported and the bills to be 
reported will fully answer the argument of the 
gentleman that we are making only a slight assault 
upon the system. 

The main reason which has led me to favor this 
method of attack is. that it is possible that some 
of the bills reported by the committee may pass 
the Senate and receive the sanction of the Presi- 
dent, and if we can succeed in bringing to the 

(3) 



4 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

people of this country relief in any form, even to 
a small degree, we shall be accomplishing far more 
for our country, and, as I believe, doing better for 
our party, than if we simply attempt to make a 
record by a general bill, with no prospect of its 
passage. 

Another reason : This will enable us to unmask 
some of the Republicans of the North and West, 
who have insisted to their people that they believe 
in reforming the tariff in the interest of the con- 
sumers, and that they were anxious to give certain 
relief, but always shield themselves behind the 
extended provisions of a general bill. If we are 
thus able to put those people upon a defense before 
their constituents, which they are poorly prepared 
to make, we shall have done something for our 
country. 

The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley], 
however, in that remarkable plea which he made 
against free wool when he was discharging the 
self-imposed task of defending the agricultural 
classes, a spectacle as unexpected as it was absurd, 
would have you believe that the only cause of his 
solicitude was the fear that this bill might injure 
the farmer. 

But you who listened to him will remember that 
the climax was reached when he turned to this side 
of the House and with the most intense fear 
depicted upon his features exclaimed that the 
policy of the committee was to ^'divide and con- 
quer.'' He had perhaps read the Home Market 
Bulletin^ where Mr. Draper said that ** protection- 
ists must stand together or fall separately.'' He 



THE TARIFF 5 

had perhaps read in that same Bulletin chat the 
* ' wool tariff is the keystone of the protective arch. ' ' 
And we then understood from his manifestations 
of anxiety that what he feared was not so much 
that the farmer might be injured as that protec- 
tion might lose one of its most ardent champions. 

That was a confession, Mr. Chairman, that the 
protective system can not stand upon its merits. It 
was a confession that they dare not go before the 
people and defend the tariff upon each article upon 
the ground that it is right and needed. It was a 
confession that this system is sustained simply by 
the cooperation of the beneficiaries of a tariff, and 
that they are held together by **the cohesive power 
of plunder. '* It was a confession that the loss of 
one defender might endanger the whole system. 

If, Mr. Chairman, the fears of the gentleman 
from Maine are realized, the committee will find 
in that fact complete justification for its course; 
renewed hope and encouragement will be given to 
that large proportion of our people who have felt 
the burdens of a protective tariff, but have been 
unable to obtain relief because of the log-rolling 
of those who stand behind this bulwark. 

I desire to call attention first to the bill now 
under consideration, and then to what is known 
as the binding-twine bill ; which, tho not regu- 
larly before the committee, has been referred to by 
our friends on the other side ; and then, if the 
committee is willing to listen, I should like to go 
even further and accept the challenge of the gen- 
tleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] to discuss the 
principle of protection. I consider myself for- 



6 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

tunate that I am permitted to hear protective doc- 
trine from its highest source. Out in Nebraska we 
are so far away from the beneficiaries of a tariff 
that the arguments in justification of protection in 
traveling that long distance become somewhat 
diluted and often polluted, so that I am glad to be 
permitted to drink the water fresh from its foun- 
tains in Maine and Massachusetts, and I will 
assure the gentleman [Mr. Dingley] that those of 
us who believe in tariff reform are willing to meet 
him upon the principle involved, not only here but 
everywhere. 

The bill under consideration provides for admit- 
ting free of duty wool and those associated articles 
which we know as raw material in the woolen 
industry. It also takes away entirely those specific 
or compensatory duties which were added to the 
ad valorem rates to enable the manufacturer to 
transfer to the back of the consumer the burden 
which a tariff on raw material places upon the 
manufacturer. We have also reduced the ad 
valorem rates, leaving the rates ranging from 25 
to 45 per cent., with an average of not quite 40 
per cent., less than the Mills bill, whereas the pres- 
ent rates average over 90 per cent. We have left 
the tariff lowest upon the articles which are cheap- 
est and of most necessary use. 

The reason why I believe in putting raw material 
upon the free list is because any tax imposed 
npon raw material must at last be taken from 
the consumer of the manufactured article. You 
can impose no tax for the benefit of the producer 
of raw material which does not find its way, 



THE TARIFF 7 

through the various forms of manufactured prod- 
uct, and at last press with accumulated weight 
upon the person who uses the finished product. 

Another reason for believing that raw material 
should be upon the free list is because that is the 
only method by which one business can be favored 
without injury to another. We are not, in that 
case, imposing a tax for the benefit of the manu- 
facturer, but we are simply saying to the manu- 
facturer: ^'We will not impose any burden upon 
you.'' When we give to the manufacturer free 
raw material and free machinery, we give to him, 
I think, all the encouragement which a people 
acting under a free Government like ours can 
legitimately give to an industrj^. 

The reduction which we have made in the tariff 
upon manufactured articles is a great reduction in 
existing schedules. It is not as great a reduction 
as might be made. I believe that we have left 
far more tariff than can be shown to be necessary 
to provide for any difference, if there be any dif- 
ference, between the cost of manufacture here and 
abroad. But I am led to agree to this moderate 
reduction of the tariff upon manufactured articles 
for two reasons: first, because, in going from a 
vicious system — and I believe that our present 
system is a vicious system, created by the necessi- 
ties of war and continued by favoritism — because, 
I say, in going from a vicious to a correct system 
the most rapid progress can be made by degrees. 

Another reason why I am willing to stop at this 
point at this time is because all measures of legis- 
lation must be practical rather than ideal. We are 



8 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

confronted by a condition. Notwithstanding the 
attempt of the people to turn out of power those 
who in the last Congress ran riot, the limitations 
of our Constitution have prevented us from obtain- 
ing control of more than one of the three coordi- 
nate branches of the legislative power. Any bill 
to become a law must pass not only this House but 
also the Senate, which is hostile, and must receive 
the approval of a Republican President. There- 
fore, if we expect success we must leave room for 
no objection that a Republican can take advantage 
of as a justification for standing in the way of this 
relief. And I believe in this bill we have done 
that; there is no objection that the Republican 
party can stand upon in opposition to this bill and 
upon which they dare to go before the country. 

I desire to call attention, Mr. Chairman, to the 
advantage which this bill brings to the people of 
this country. We are not prepared to say, nobody 
can affirm positively, what effect the present tariff 
on wool has upon the wool-grower. I read in the 
address of Judge Lawrence, before the Ohio Wool- 
Growers' Association, that in his opinion the man 
in this country who raises sheep receives for his 
wool the foreign price of wool plus the duty upon 
wool. But there are many who differ with him. 
Many sheep-raisers believe that the farmer does 
not receive the tariff duty upon wool which is 
imposed ostensibly for his benefit, and they point 
to the decline in the number of sheep and in the 
price of wool under protection. 

I care not, for the sake of the argument, which 
position is true. One of three conditions must exist 



THE TARIFF 9 

at this time. We have imposed a tariff upon wool ; 
we have given a compensatory duty, which is 
equivalent to that tariff, upon wool in all its manu- 
factured forms. The manufacturer of wool must, 
if he buys foreign wool, pay this duty. Now, if 
the farmer gets no increased price for his wool 
because of protection, and the manufacturer deals 
honestly with the people and does not charge them 
anything extra, then the removal of this duty will 
still bring relief to the consumers of woolen goods 
by reducing the price of imported wool without 
affecting the price of the farmer's home-grown 
wool. This is the first condition which may exist. 

It is also possible that the manufacturer in this 
country, having the advantage of the compensatory 
duties, does charge up to the people who buy 
woolen goods the amount of the tariff as if he paid 
it to the farmer, and yet he may not pay it to the 
farmer. In that case the passage of this bill will 
still more largely reduce the cost of goods to the 
consumer and not affect the farmer who raises sheep. 

There may be a third condition. It may be that 
the manufacturer of woolen goods pays the duty 
upon imported wool and pays a like amount on 
home-grown wool and then charges to the consumer 
just exactly, under the compensatory duties, the 
amount which he has had to pay as a tariff upon 
foreign wool and as an additional price upon the 
home-grown wool. If that condition exists, then 
the operation of this bill will be to bring to the 
people of this country who consume woolen goods 
the reduction made by the bill and to prevent the 
grower of wool from collecting from the consumer 

16 



10 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

of woolen goods, through his agent the manufac- 
turer, the amount which he has been receiving. 

Now, those are the three conditions, one of which 
must exist. I do not care, my friends, for the 
sake of the argument, which condition exists, I 
am in favor of this bill. I am in favor of it, in the 
first place, because it makes a reduction in ad 
valorem rates; and in addition thereto, if the first 
condition supposed exists, reduces the price of 
woolen goods to the extent of the tariff paid on 
imported wool. This is only just, because such 
necessary articles as woolen goods should not be 
made so expensive as they are to the great masses 
of our people. 

If the second condition exists, and the manufac- 
turer is charging up against us as consumers that 
which he does not pay, I am still in favor of the 
bill, and in favor of taking away from him this 
unjust and unfair advantage. 

If the third condition exists, and the manufac- 
turer collects from us simply what he pays to the 
farmer who raises sheep, I am still in favor of 
this bill, because I do not believe we should make 
a manufacturer or any one else an agent to collect 
money from ane man and pay it into the pocket 
of another man. So you can take any of these 
conditions you like, and you can frame any defense 
you please, but I am in favor of this bill from any 
standpoint and on any condition. 

But there is another phase of this question, ]\Ir. 
Chairman. The amount of wool produced in this 
country is about 4i/^ pounds per capita; the 
amount of wool consumed is about 6I/0 pounds per 



THE TARIFF 11 

capita. Therefore we consume about 50 per cent, 
more than we produce. Hence, if whatever benefit 
there is from a tariff on wool is equally divided 
among all the people, then the abolition of this com- 
pensatory duty, not to speak of the reduction in 
ad valorem rates, brings to the people of the 
country about 50 per cent, more of advantage than 
it can possibly take away from them. 

I find that in the States east of the Mississippi 
River we have now about one-half the number of 
sheep that we had when protection took the wool 
industry of the country into its encouraging 
embrace. I find but two States, Michigan and 
Ohio, which have one sheep per capita. The aver- 
age production is about 6 pounds per sheep. 
Therefore, in a State that has one sheep per capita 
the people of the State would get just as much 
relief from this bill as they could possibly lose 
because of the repeal of the tariff duties on w^ool. 
Maine has a little less than one sheep per capita, 
and therefore she would receive more advantage 
by a reduction of the duty than she could possibly 
lose. The States of New York, Pennsylvania, Illi- 
nois, and Nebraska — and you can take others for 
yourself and make the computation ; I simply men- 
tion these for illustration — these four States pro- 
duce less than 1% pounds of wool per capita, and 
they consume 614 pounds per capita. So, Mr. 
Chairman, to the people of these States this bill 
brings more than four times as much in the way 
of advantage as it can possibly take away from 
them. 

But I have gone on the theory, Mr. Chairman, 



12 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

that this advantage, whatever it is to the wool- 
grower, is equally divided among the people of the 
State. I find in the report of the Wool-Growers* 
Association for the State of Ohio, held at Colum- 
bus some two months ago, a statement that there 
are 80,000 flockmasters in Ohio. I find that in 
Ohio there are about 4,000,000 people. Hence there 
is about one floekmaster to 50 persons. It is fair 
to assume that in computing this number, it being 
for political purposes and to influence legislation, 
all the sheep-raisers in Ohio, both heads of fami- 
lies and sons old enough to vote, were probably 
counted. But supposing every one to be the head 
of a family, it means that one head of a family 
in Ohio out of ten raises sheep, and I suppose that 
the proportion is fully as great in Ohio as any- 
where. 

Now, if that calculation be true, what does it 
mean? It means that all over this country, irre- 
spective of their State or locality, ten times as 
many people are benefited by this bill as are by 
any possibility injured. Is not that some advan- 
tage? 

The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] said 
that I would not dare to take this bill to my State. 
I will not be afraid to take it to my State, nor 
will I be afraid to take any bill that is passed by 
this House; but I certainly would not hesitate to 
take a measure of this kind, when I say to you, 
my friend, that this bill brings to the people of 
the State of Nebraska, to the people of New York, 
to the people of Pennsylvania, to the people of 
Kansas, to the people of this entire country, 



THE TARIFF 13 

immeasurably more advantage than it can possibly 
deprive them of, and it brings the advantage to 
ten times as many people as are injuriously affected 
by it. 

Our friends have said that this is class legisla- 
tion. That is, that when we say we shall deprive 
the wool-grower of any advantage he has under the 
present law we are guilty of class legislation. It 
is sufficient evidence, Mr. Chairman, that this bill 
does not advance class legislation that the Repub- 
lican party is solidly opposing it. If it were class 
legislation we could reasonably expect their united 
support. 

But, sir, I desire to call the attention of the Com- 
mittee to this distinction. We have referred to it 
in the report of the committee on binding twine. 
There is a difference between a man coming to this 
Congress and demanding that other people shall be 
subjected to a tax for his benefit and a demand 
on the part of those taxed to be relieved of the 
burden. Is there not a difference between these 
two principles ? It seems to me that the difference 
is as marked as between day and night. It is simply 
this difference, sir: The man who says, ''Impose 
upon somebody else a tax for my benefit," says 
what the pickpocket says, ''Let me get my hand 
into his pocket"; but the man who says, "Take 
away the burdens imposed on me for other peo- 
ple's benefit," says simply what every honest man 
says, "Let me alone to enjoy the results of my 
toil." I repeat, is there not a difference between 
these two principles? 

But, Mr. Chairman, upon what ground is this 



14 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

protection to the wool-grower asked? Is it because 
of the importance of the industry? The gentle- 
man from Maine [Mr. Dingley] said that it was 
one of the most universal of all the industries of 
the farm ; and when I tried to call his attention to 
the fact that only a small proportion of our people 
own sheep, he did not care to be further inter- 
rupted. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that last year 
the value of sheep in this country was only $108,- 
391,444, while the value of live stock upon the 
farm was $2,329,787,770; that is, the value of 
sheep was less than one-twentieth the value of all 
the live stock. 

The wool crop last year was valued at about 
$70,000,000, while the value of the corn, wheat, 
and oats raised that year, without mentioning the 
other crops of the farm, amounted to $1,582,184,- 
206. Three items of the farm amounted to twenty 
times the value of the wool clip. Out in Nebraska 
there was a time when we had almost one sheep for 
each man, woman, and child. We look back to it 
as the ''mutton age" of Nebraska. But, alas, that 
happy day has passed! The number of sheep has 
continually decreased, until now, if every woman 
in the State named Mary insisted upon having a 
pet lamb at the same time, we would have to go 
out of the State to get lambs enough to go round. 

No; it is not because of the importance of the 
industry, nor is it because it is an infant industry. 
You may go back into history, sacred or profane, 
as far as tradition runs, and you will find a record 
of the sheep. Homer tells how Ulysses escaped 
from the cave of the Cyclops by means of a sheep. 



THE TARIFF 15 

We read in the Bible that when Isaac was abont to 
be offered up, away back in the patriarchal days, 
a ram was found caught by the horns in a thicket, 
and offered in his stead; and further back than 
that, in the fourth chapter of Genesis, I think in 
the second verse — my Republican friends, of course, 
will remember — it is recorded of the second son of 
the first earthly pair, "Abel was a keeper of 
sheep." And from that day to this — 

Mr. Simpson. I want to ask the gentleman if 
we are to understand that this is the sacrifice you 
are offering up on the altar of protection, 

Mr. Bryan. No, sir; we are only beginning 
an attack, which will be continued just as long as 
there is anything to remedy. But I was going to 
say, Mr. Chairman, that from that day to this the 
sheep has been the constant companion of man 
in all his travels, and it has dift'ered from its mod- 
ern owner perhaps the most in that it is recognized 
as the symbol of meekness. 

Mr. Chairman, in the earlier days, when protec- 
tion was defended from more patriotic motives, if 
I may so assert, than to-day, the main excuse given 
was that we needed the tariff to help infant indus- 
tries to get upon their feet. I want to call the 
attention of the Republicans to the language of one 
or two of the early fathers upon the subject. Alex- 
ander Hamilton, in his report on manufactures in 
1791, said: 

"The continuance of bounties on manufactures long es- 
tablished must always be of questionable policy because a 
presumption would arise in every such case that there were 
natural and inherent impediments to success." 



16 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

That was the original idea. Mr. Clay said in 
1833: 

"The theory of protection supposes too that after a 
certain time the protected arts will have acquired such 
strength and perfection as will enable them subsequently, 
unaided, to stand against foreign competition." 

And again in 1840: 

"No one, Mr. President, in tlie commencement of the pro- 
tective policy, ever supposed that it was to be perpetual." 

This was the argument used in the beginning; 
but arguments have to be framed to meet condi- 
tions, and we find now that infants that could get 
along on 10 per cent, when they were born, and 
20 per cent, when they were children, and 30 per 
cent, when they were young men, have required 
40, 50, 60, or 70 per cent, when old and entering 
upon their second childhood. 

Therefore they had to frame new arguments. 
What is the argument advanced now? It is that 
the conditions in this country are such that we 
can not compete with other countries, and that 
therefore we must put upon the imported article a 
tariff making the price so high that we can afford 
to produce the article in this country. Do they 
say that they need a protective tariff to help the 
sheep industry get upon its feet? Not at all. Mr. 
Lawrence in his speech said in regard to the 
impossibility of competing: 

"And these are the existing conditions. In Australia 
merino wool can be and is produced at a less cost than it 
can be in the United States, because (1) pasturage can 
be had there for a few cents an acre, and (2) the climate 
there is such that substantially no winter feeding is re- 
quired. The same is true of South America." 



THE TARIFF 17 

We are even assured by the same high authority 
that "^wool-growers should at the lirst practical mo- 
ment demand gradually annually increasing duties 
on all classes of wools just as our increasing Hocks 
can supply increasing demands." A modest de- 
mand! They offer no hope of reduction. In dis- 
cussing protection our friends are in the habit of 
claiming everything possible. Why, the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. DingleyJ stated to us seriously 
that the tariff on wool had made more pounds of 
wool grow on a sheep's back. 

That is in the Record, that protection is respon- 
sible for the fact that the sheep to-day produce 
more wool than they used to. I have often thought 
how perplexed the sheep must have been after the 
passage of the last bill when they got together and 
consulted among themselves as to how they were 
going to increase the amount of their wool now 
that the tariff' had made it necessary. But nobody, 
Mr. Chairman, has said to this House that protec- 
tion w^ould reduce the price of pasturage in this 
country, nor has anybody claimed that it would 
so moderate the climate as to do away with 
the necessity for winter feeding. The theory, Mr. 
Chairman, upon which this is justified might as 
well be met here as anywhere ; and I want to state, 
as emphatically as words can state it, that I con- 
sider it as false in economy and vicious in policy 
to attempt to raise at a high price in this country 
that w^hich we can purchase abroad at a low price 
in exchange for the products of our toil. 

It was said by a gentleman who appeared before 
the committee — I think at the last Congress — that 



18 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

wool could be raised in Australia for 6 cents a 
pound, and that it could not be raised in this 
country for less than 15 cents; and we are told 
that it is a wise policy to so tax imported wool as 
to enable our people to raise wool at 15 cents a 
pound instead of buying it at 6 cents a pound; 
that we save money and give employment to labor. 
If that principle is true, then it is wise to raise wool 
at 15 cents a pound instead of buying at 3 cents, 
because we save more in labor. If it is wise to 
raise it at 15 cents a pound instead of buying it at 
3, it is still wiser to raise it at 15 cents rather than 
have somebody give it to us. 

That is what it leads to ; and the gentlemen who 
maintain that position are fit companions for the 
people who are supposed by Bastiat to have peti- 
tioned the French legislature to find some way of 
preventing the sun from shining, because it inter- 
fered with the business of the candle-makers. If 
their theory is true, then the most unkind act of 
the Creator was to send that great orb of day 
every morning to chase away the shadows of the 
night, flood all the earth with his brightness, and 
throw out of employment those who otherwise 
might be making tallow candles to light the world. 

It was said by a French writer that Robinson 
Crusoe wgis a protectionist; that when he was on 
the island all alone he started to make a canoe by 
hollowing out a log with a broken stone. Just 
about the time he commenced, some boards floated 
up to the shore, and the thought came to him, "I 
will take these boards and make myself a canoe 
out of them;" but the protective idea came to 



THE TARIFF 19 

him, and he said, ' ' No ; if I do that I will lose the 
labor I put into the log. " So he kicked the boards 
away from the shore, and went on hacking at the 
log with the broken stone. A little later, when he 
and Friday were together, they spent four hours in 
the morning gathering fruit, and four hours in the 
afternoon catching game. Some one came up from 
another island and said, "On our island we have 
lots of game but no fruit; we will bring you all 
the game you can catch in four hours for the fruit 
you can gather in two hours." "Let us do it," 
said Friday. "Oh, no," says Crusoe, "if we do 
that, what will we do with the other two hours 
of labor?" 

And that is the theory of our friends. When 
we buy something, we buy with the results of our 
toil; and they tell us that we must not so arrange 
the laws of this country that we can buy a great 
deal, but that we must so arrange them as to make 
us work just as long as possible upon every piece 
of work we undertake. It is the old theory, "the 
maximum of toil and minimum of product." If 
this is the true principle, then discard your riding 
cultivators, go back to the crooked stick, and let 
us plow in such a way that all the people of this 
coiTutry can find employment in plowing alone. 

I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, denounce as falla- 
cious, as unworthy of consideration, the only reason 
that can be given in support of the tariff on wool, 
as a protective tariff and for protective purposes. 

I desire now, Mr. Chairman, to call the atten- 
tion of this committee to another bill, known as the 
"binding-twine bill." This bill places upon the 



20 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

free list the various kinds of binding-twine. The 
majority and minority of the committee agree upon 
some of the facts. We agree that there were con- 
sumed in this country last year about 100,000,000 
pounds of binding-twine. We agree that if a 
tariff of seven-tenths of 1 per cent, is added to the 
price of the binding-twine it costs the people of 
this country $700,000 because of that tariff. 

We agree also that no twine was imported and 
that no revenue was. received by the Government 
from this source. Therefore, if this was a tax 
upon the consumer, it was a tax of $700,000 taken 
out of the people's pocket, not one cent of which 
reached the Treasury. According to the Republi- 
can idea, that is an ideal tariff; it embraces the 
maximum of burden with the minimum of revenue. 
Follow out that principle, arrange your schedules 
upon that plan, and there will not be a dollar 
derived for the support of government from a 
tariff upon imports, because you will have no 
imports, and you must find some other source of 
revenue. I want to ask the gentlemen who repre- 
sent the minority if they are in favor of apply- 
ing this principle to the other schedules; if they 
are in favor of so adjusting the tariff as to prevent 
imports and yet enable the protected manufacturer 
here to take the money out of the people 's pockets ? 

I desire to call attention briefly to what this 
principle involves. It is supposed that a tariff is 
levied because we need revenue. I heard the gen- 
tleman who led the majority in the last Congress 
in the tariff discussion, Mr. McKinley, in a speech 
which he made at Ottumwa, Iowa, say that were it 



THE TARIFF 21 

not for tHe necessity for revenue there would be 
no justification for a tariff upon imports. There- 
fore, the idea is that you levy the tariff to collect 
revenue to support your Government. 

Now, how ought it to be done? Suppose you 
should apply this principle in collecting the taxes 
for your counties and your towns. It is esti- 
mated that on an average for every dollar brought 
into the Treasury by import duties $4 go into 
the pockets of the protected manufacturers. What 
does that mean? It means that 80 per cent, 
of the taxes paid by the people for the support of 
the General Government because of import duties 
goes to the protected interests, and only 20 per cent, 
goes into the public Treasury, 80 per cent, being 
absorbed in collecting the tax. Try that in your 
counties. 

How many of your counties would permit the 
collection, by direct taxation, of $100,000 in taxes 
when only $20,000 were needed for revenue ? How 
many of you would pay $80,000 to some man to col- 
lect the $20,000 that you wanted to use ? And yet, 
Mr. Chairman, according to the principle involved 
' in this particular item, we pay not 80, but 100 per 
cent, for collection ! Seven hundred thousand dol- 
lars are collected from the people in this case if it 
is a tax, not one cent of which gets into the Treas- 
ury. Are the gentlemen who represent the minority 
going to justify that ? I am anxious to hear upon 
what principle that can be defended. But the 
minority say: 

"So that, if this assumption were true, the entire addi- 
tional cost would only amount to 1 cent per acre, or less 



22 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

than 1 mill per bushel of grain, and yet the saving of this 
trifling sum is the excuse given by the majority,'' etc. 

We had a report from one of the manufacturers 
of binding-twine that there are thirty-five binding- 
twine factories in the United States (there are pos- 
sibly a few more). If that is true, then $700,000 a 
year means $20,000 to every one of these binding- 
twine factories. Is that a trifling consideration? 
It is trifling to the farmer to be taxed 1 cent an 
acre, but it is a matter of some importance (which 
the minority seems to think of more consideration) 
that it means $20,000 a year to every binding-twine 
manufacturer in this country. This tax is a small 
matter, Mr. Chairman; 1 cent an acre is trivial; 
the total sum is not great ; but if you concede the 
right of Government to collect from the farmer 1 
cent an acre in order that a binding-twine factory 
may make $20,000 a year more, you concede the 
right of Government to collect from that farmer 1 
cent an acre on each of two hundred additional 
items for the ' ' protection ' ' of other industries, until 
you have absorbed every cent of his income from 
his farm. They told us the other day that there are 
twenty-five hundred articles upon the tariff list. 

Now, if there are twenty-five hundred articles 
upon that list, and you can take one at a time and 
deal with it upon this principle, imposing a tax of 
1 cent an acre upon the farmer for each article, then 
you can impose an aggregate tax of $25 an acre 
upon the farmer for the benefit of somebody else. 
This binding-twine tax is a trifling consideration, 
but the farmers of this country who have been 
oppressed, who have been made to bleed at every 



THE TARIFF 23 

pore by your infamous system, will welcome even a 
trivial advantage as an earnest of that complete 
relief which will come when it is in our power to 
give it. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention now 
to two inconsistent sentences that lie side by side 
in the report of the minority. I do not, however, 
call attention to them because inconsistent sen- 
tences are at all rare in arguments in defense of 
protection; in any hour's speech in defense of a 
protective tariff you will find such contradictions 
standing face to face. But I call attention to these 
inconsistencies for the purpose merely of showing 
the confusion into which those are led who attempt 
to prove that you can benefit one man by legislation 
without taking something from somebody else. 
Here is the first sentence: 

"It is evident, however, from the report of the Bureau 
of Statistics, that nothing has been added to the price 
during the past year on account of this duty." 

And here is the next sentence : 

"It is also evident from the circular of the Belfast Rope 
Company, Limited, that to remove the tariff is to transfer 
the entire industry to other countries." 

Here are two estranged products of one mental 
effort 3^earning for reconciliation. Now, if the first 
statement is true, that no part of this duty was 
added to the price, then how is the last part true 
that the removal of the duty is going to transfer 
all this industry to some other country ? There can 
be no reconciliation of those propositions, because 
the only way in which you can drive out the man- 
ufacturing industry from this country is to so 



24 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

reduce the price of the article competing from 
abroad that manufacturers in this country cannot 
afford to make it ; and if you say that the tariif was 
not added to the price, you say that the price was 
just as low as without the tariff ; and when you say 
that the price was just as low with the tariff as 
without the tariff, then you say it makes no differ- 
ence to the manufacturer in this country whether 
he has a tariff or not. 

But I want to call attention to the alarm on the 
part of the minority of the committee. 

"It is also evident from the circular of the Belfast Rope 
Companj^ Limited " 

There was a circular sent by some twine-manu- 
facturing establishment to the Bureau of Statistics 
and by it sent to us in the committee room ; and this 
circular offering to sell twine is made the excuse in 
this minority report for retaining a tax of $700,000 
on the farmers of this country. I suppose that if 
some other man had sent a circular — if we had two 
circulars instead of one — the minority of the com- 
mittee would have wanted to double the tariff and 
to collect $1,400,000 from the farmers. This shows 
how readily they become alarmed when the interests 
of a manufacturer are at stake, and how slow they 
are to become alarmed when the interests of the 
great consuming masses of this country are at stake. 

Another thing. In this report they say — 

"If it is true, as stated in a report of the majority, that 
the Senate in 1890 voted to place this article on the free 

Li^t " 

''If it is true?" They will not believe the 
records of Congress. If it is true ! Then they say : 



THE TARIFF 25 

— it was induced largely by the assumption that the price 
was then regulated by a trust and combination formed with 
a view to force up the price ; but this condition of affairs' 
which was then proven never to have existed is certainly 
impossible under present competition. 

They tell you that the vote in the Senate was 
taken upon a false assumption — the assumption of 
a condition which did not then exist and which is 
impossible — and yet the minority of this committee 
have in their possession a letter of Edwin H. Fitler 
& Co., saying that twenty-nine out of thirty-five of 
these factories are controlled by the National Cord- 
age Company, and that this company controls 60 
per cent, of the total output. Yet in spite of the 
fact that they know of the company, its name and 
location, and the number of factories which it con- 
trols, they tell you in this report that that vote 
was taken upon a supposed condition which not 
only did not exist but cannot exist. And then to 
add to their inconsistency, after telling you that 
the competition in this country is such that no com- 
bination can exist (in spite of the actual fact that 
it does exist) they tell you a little further on that 
they are not willing to destroy the competition of 
the American manufacturer and leave the farmer 
entirely at the mercy of the foreign producer and 
importer. In other words, it is impossible for the 
manufacturers of this country to combine, but just 
take off the tariff and all the factories in the world 
will combine against the poor farmer of the United 
States. 

Again, they state that if we take the tariff off, 
the importer will charge his per cent, and the 
farmer will not get his binding-twine any cheaper 

I 6 



26 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

than he did before. At what straws a drowning 
man will catch ! Why, Mr. Chairman, if it is true 
that the amount charged by the importer will offset 
the tariff, then what becomes of all this gloomy pre- 
diction that this industry is going to be destroyed 
in our country and transferred to foreign countries ? 
If the importer charges an amount equal to the 
tariff, then the farmer will not get his twine any 
cheaper; and if he will not get his twine any 
cheaper, these men can sell at the same price, can 
they not? And how are they going to be run out 
of the market? 

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another thing to be 
said in regard to binding-twine. Complaint is made 
here in the last part of this minority report that 
the effect of the bill will be to admit free a class of 
jute yarns and twine in an advanced state of man- 
ufacture and to disarrange the entire manufacture 
of jute goods in this country. 

(Here the hammer fell.) 

Mr. Burrows. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from Nebraska may 
have such additional time as he may require to 
conclude his remarks. 

The Chairman (Mr. Ellis). Is there objec- 
tion to the request of the gentleman from Michi- 
gan? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to my 
colleague upon the committee for his kindness and 
to the committee for its courtesy. 

I was, when interrupted, about to call the atten- 
tion of the members present to the fact that this 



THE TARIFF 27 

bill puts on the free list those kinds of twine which 
are made in whole or in part from raw material 
already upon the free list. There is an apparent 
exception in the case of jute. Jute and jute butts 
are already on the free list; but what is known as 
jute yarn is subjected to a tariff under the present 
law, and the objection made to this clause in the 
bill is that what is known as jute yarn used in other 
industries may come in free as twine and disar- 
range the whole business in this country. I have 
simply this to say : we remove the duty from hind- 
ing-twine made of jute and these other materials. 
If jute yarn caii he used for hinding-twine, we 
want it to come in free. If it is not binding-twine, 
it does not come in free under this law, and we 
can safely trust the authorities to prevent some- 
thing coming in as binding-twine which is not bind- 
ing-twine. 

Mr. Lind. Will the gentleman yield for a ques- 
tion? 

Mr. Bryan. Very gladly. 

Mr. Lind. I notice that the report brought into 
this House by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Turner], a member of your committee, the ma- 
chinery used in the manufacture of cotton-bagging 
is put on the free list. Cotton-bagging, as I under- 
stand it, is made from substantially the same mate- 
rial as binding-twine. Now, I should like the gen- 
tleman from Nebraska to state to the committee 
why you put the machinery for the manufacture 
of cotton-bagging on the free list and not the 
machinery for the manufacture of binding-twine? 

Mr. Bryan. That is a fair question and I am 



28 BRYAN'S SPEECHES. 

glad to answer it, as I shall be glad to answer any 
question that may be proposed in good faith by 
any of the gentlemen, friends on this side of the 
House or the other. 

There is this difference : There is no doubt that 
the manufacture of binding-twine under present 
conditions can be conducted in this country as 
cheaply as in any other country in the world, and 
that this tariff of seven-tenths of one cent per 
pound is absolutely unnecessary to protect the 
industry. 

There could be, therefore, no injury inflicted 
upon the manufacturers by not putting the machin- 
ery for making the binding-twine on the free list. 
I will say this, that speaking for myself, I shall be 
glad to put on the free list, not only the machinery 
for manufacturing binding-twine, but for manufac- 
turing all things, for I believe it a legitimate advan- 
tage that can be given to industries in all parts of 
the country. I was glad when the last Congress put 
on the free list the machinery used in the manufac- 
ture of beet sugar. My only criticism was that 
they did not make it broad enough to include not 
only the machinery used in the manufacture of 
beet sugar, but that used in the manufacture of all 
other kinds of sugar. 

Now, Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Lind. If the gentleman will pardon me for 
another interruption, that does not answer my 
specific question. Here you put a manufactured 
article, specifically named, on the free list. Why 
not put the machinery for manufacturing that spe- 
cific article also on the free list, so as to give the 



THE TARIFF 29 

domestic producer at least an equal show with the 
foreign producer? 

Now, I am not discussing or rather inquiring into 
the gentleman's general ideas here on this subject, 
but in regard to this specific article I ask why that 
exception is made. 

Me. Bryan. I will say this to the gentleman. 
That it was the object of the committee, in present- 
ing separate bills, to as far as possible confine the 
discussion to these bills and to the items they 
embody; and if we had attempted to put on the 
free list the machinery by which this material now 
under consideration is made (I have stated that the 
manufacturers can compete without this advan- 
tage), then there would have been men owning 
machinery who would have come and complained 
that we ought also to put on the free list pig iron, 
iron ore, and other articles. 

Mr. Lind. But do not the manufacturers of ma- 
chinery for making cotton-bagging complain? 

Mr. Bryan. I do not know, but I will say this 
in regard to machinery for the manufacture of cot- 
ton-bagging, that it is very simple machinery, and 
is about all imported anyway. That is my under- 
standing at least. But the gentleman will see that 
if we should attempt to embrace in this bill every- 
thing that can be related to it we could not confine 
the subject to binding-twine and we would soon find 
some of the associates of my friend telling the peo- 
ple of Minnesota and Iowa that they were much in 
favor of this feature or that feature of the bill, but 
they could not vote for it altogether. Now, we 
want them to go on record on individual proposi- 



30 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

tions, and condemn them or support them as they 
see fit. 

Mr. Lind. And stultify ourselves. 

]\Ir. Bryan. Well, you can do just as you please 
about that. But if the present system were framed 
with an eye to justice, entire justice, there might 
be some reason in opposing any change that w^as not 
entirely just in all its details and relations. But 
when 3^ou have a system conceived tn greed and 
fashioned in iniquity I do not think that the ques- 
tion of justice can be brought in when you revise 
it. That is, reform is not to be delayed until exact 
justice can be rendered. 

Mr. McKenna. Will the gentleman allow me to 
ask him a question? 

Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 

Mr. McKenna. Do you really believe that the 
protective policy is similar to the pickpocket's 
policj^ of putting a man's hand into another man's 
pocket and extracting money from it? 

Mr. Bryan. Yes, that is my belief. 

Mr. McKenna. Now, then, one other question. 
You can answer it all together. If that is so, how 
do you justify your position, not in economics, but 
in morality, for reporting a bill which leaves 39 
per cent, taxes on woolen clothing? 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, if I found a robber 
in my house who had taken all I had, and I was 
going to lose it all or else get one-half back, I 
would take the half. I will ask the gentleman from 
California whether he would refuse to give the 
people any relief because he could not give all that 
he wanted to give? 



THE TARIFF 31 

Mr. McKenna. No. 

Mr. Bryan. Then we agree. 

Mr. McKenna. No, we do not. If I was in a 
position of power, being a member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and believed that my vote 
would relieve this country from a system of policy 
w^hich was simply a system of pickpocketing, I 
w^ould never consent to vote for a bill in that way. 

jMr. Bryan. In that respect the gentleman from 
California and the gentleman from Nebraska do not 
think alike. 

Mr. IMcKenna. And in some other respects also. 

Mr. Bryan. I am willing to take the best method 
that is possible, to obtain relief just as far as pos- 
sible, and I will not insist upon getting it all before 
I consent to take any. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention to 
a letter w^hich I received to-day from the Bureau 
of Statistics. It may assist in understanding 
whether there is any trust in this country or not. 
"We addressed a communication to the Bureau of 
Statistics for information upon the subject. We 
received a number of letters, and to-day I was 
handed two other letters which have just been re- 
ceived, one from the National Cordage Company 
and one from Edward H. Fitler & Co. I want to 
call attention to one sentence in the letter from the 
National Cordage Company: 

"The National Cordage Company, erroneously termed the 
trust, has the power of legislating for some forty of these 
mills." 

Now, those who believe that a trust is a ** private 
affair," into which we should not inquire, might 



32 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

regard it as all right ; but those who are accustomed 
to the use of the English language can not read that 
statement, that this company has the legislating for 
fort}^ mills, and then deny that there is any com- 
bination. 

The Fitler Company write: 

"We would think that the average price obtained by the 
manufacturer would be slightly higher than last year, when 
we bad 20,000 tons carried over from 1890 which the large 
crop of 1891 consumed." 

Now, there is the promise of a man outside of 
the National Cordage Company that the chances 
are that the farmer will pay a little more for his 
binding-twine this year than last year, and the 
papers of the last few days have contained items 
to the effect that the advance in price has already 
been agreed upon; agreed upon, I presume, with a 
confident expectation that a Republican Senate will 
not permit the people, voting through their Repre- 
sentatives in Congress, to bring relief from this 
tax. But enough on that subject. 

Mr. Turner. Does my friend from Nebraska 
remember that that body agreed during the last 
Congress to make binding-twine free? 

Mr. Bryan. I do remember it, and our report 
on that bill so states ; and yet the minority of this 
committee say that it was induced by a misunder- 
standing, and we have been given to understand by 
high authority that they will not allow any bills of 
a tariff reform nature to pass the Senate. My hope 
is — it is simply a hope — that w^hen these bills go 
before that body their consciences will rise superior 
to their partizanship. 



THE TARIFF 33 

!Mr. Clover. Vain hope ! 

Mr. Bryan. It may be a vain hope, but it is 
the only hope we have, until the people, speaking 
at the polls, carry still further the reform that was 
begun in 1890. 

But now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention 
to the principle of protection. 

As I said in the beginning, we were invited by 
the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] to dis- 
cuss it ; and if I gather anything from the remarks 
that I hear on this side of the House, and from what 
has already been said, there will be no hesitation 
in accepting the invitation. Let us go back to the 
foundation of the principle. What is the object of 
a protective tariff? There are two kinds of tariff; 
a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection. In 
our platform of 1876, that upon which Mr. Tilden 
was nominated and elected, we declared, "we de- 
mand that all custom-house taxation shall be only 
for revenue. ' ' That is the platform upon which the 
party stood then. That I believe is the principle 
of the Democratic party to-day; and that we will 
approach just as rapidly as we can. Then there is 
a tariff for protection. That is the only tariff of 
which we complain. 

I am not objecting to a tariff for revenue. If it 
were possible to arrange a system just as I believe 
it ought to be arranged, I would collect one part 
of our revenues for the support of the Federal Gov- 
ernment from internal taxes on whisky and tobacco. 
These are luxuries and may well be taxed. I would 
collect another part from a tariff levied upon im- 
ported articles, with raw material on the free list — 



34 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

the lowest duties upon the necessaries of life and 
the highest duties upon the luxuries of life. And 
then I should collect another part of the revenues 
from a graduated income tax upon the wealth of 
this country. It is conceded by all writers that a 
tariff upon imports operates most oppressively^ upon 
the poor. A graduated income tax would fall most 
heavily upon the rich, and thus the two would par- 
tially compensate each other and lessen the injustice 
that might come from either one alone. That, I 
say, would be my idea, if it were possible. 

But I am not complaining at this time of a rev- 
enue tariit. What I denounce is a protective tariff, 
levied purely and solely for the purpose of protec- 
tion. It is false economy and the most vicious 
political principle that has ever cursed this country. 

Mr. Raines. Will the gentleman allow me to 
ask him a question ? 

Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 

Mr. Raines. I want to know if the gentleman 
does not remember that in the Democratic platform 
of 1876 they expressly said that it was for the pro- 
tection of American industries, a tariff for revenue, 
and to promote industry ? 

Mr. Bryan. There is a question, Mr. Chair- 
man, when you come to consider the details of a 
revenue tariff, as to just how it ought to be laid. 
I do not remember the exact language of that plat- 
form upon that question ; but I do believe, as I say, 
and I am ready to stand by it anywhere, that a pro- 
tective tariff' levied, not to raise revenue, but to pro- 
tect some particular industry, is wrong in principle 
and vicious in practise. 



THE TARIFF 35 

Now, what is a protective tariff, and what does it 
mean? It is a simple device by which one man is 
authorized to collect money from his fellow men. 
There are two ways in which you can protect an 
industry. You can give it a bounty out of the 
Federal Treasury, or you can authorize it to take 
up the collection itself. This is the only difference. 
Suppose that the Chairman desired to help some 
particular industry — for instance, one in the home 
of my friend from New York []\Ir. Raines], who 
has asked the question. He might do it in either 
of two ways. He might pass around the hat here 
and collect the money and turn it over to the 
favored industry, or he might simply say to the 
man, "I will put a tariff upon the imported article 
and make the price so high that 3^ou can collect the 
additional price for your home-made article. ' ' 

Now, what is the difference except that in the one 
case the Chairman passes around the hat and turns 
the money over to his friend, and in the other case 
he authorizes the friend to pass the hat himself. 

Mr. Perkins. May I ask the gentleman one 
question to clear up a matter in my own mind ? 

]\Ir. Bryan. Certainly; I will be very glad to 
answer if it will clear my friend's mind. 

Mr. Perkins. Are you to be understood as 
opposed to a State or national protection to be 
extended to the beet-sugar industry? 

Mr. Bryan. I am, most assuredly. And when 
it is necessary to come down to Congress and ask 
for a protection or a bounty for an industry in my 
own State which I would refuse as wrong to an 
industry in another State, I shall cease to represent 



36 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Nebraska in Congress. The difference between a 
protective tariff and a bounty is simply a difference 
of form. 

In the one case it is open and visible, and in the 
other it is secret and hidden. There is the differ- 
ence between a bounty and a protective tariff that 
the Bible describes when it speaks of the ' ' Destruc- 
tion that wasteth at noon-day, and the pestilence 
that walketh in darkness.'' It is the difference 
between the man who meets you upon the highway, 
knocks you down and takes what you have, and the 
man who steals into your house in the night while 
you are asleep and robs you of your treasures ; and 
if I had to make choice between the two I would 
consider the highway robber the more honorable, 
because he does what he does openly and before the 
world. 

Mr. Catchings. And he incurs some little per- 
sonal danger. 

Mr. Bryan. Yes, he also incurs some little per- 
sonal danger. The great advantage of a protec- 
tive tariff over a bounty is that it is not seen, and, 
as some one has said, its greatest justification is 
that by means of it you ' * can get the most feathers 
off the goose with the least squawking." 

Just a word, Mr. Chairman, on the subject called 
up by my friend from Iowa [Mr. Perkins]. I 
stated that I was not in favor of the sugar bounty. 
I was opposed to its being given in my own State ; 
was in favor of its being repealed in my own State ; 
and when the representative of those industries was 
here the other day I told him that he could rely 
'ipon me to vote for the repeal of the bounty on 



THE TARIFF 37 

sugar at every stage in committee or House. And 
in taking that position, Mr. Chairman, I believe 
that I represent the great mass of the people, who 
cannot come to this Congress and lobby bills 
through in behalf of private interests, who cannot 
get together and petition us, but whose only peti- 
tions fall into the ballot-box when they vote, and, 
so help me God, I will be guided by those petitions 
just as long as I hold this office. When that bounty 
was put on, it was opposed in this House as uncon- 
stitutional. 

I will read at this point from a decision of the 
United States Supreme Court, 20 Wall., 657: 

"To lay with one hand the power of the Government on 
the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow 
at upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and 
build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because 
it is done under the forms of law and is called a taxation. 
This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative 
forms. 

"If it be said that a benefit results to the local public 
of a town by establishing manufactures, the same may be 
said of any other business or pursuit which employs capital 
or labor. The merchant, the mechanic, the innkeeper, the 
banker, the builder, the steamboat owner, are equally pro- 
moters of the public good, and equally deserving the aid of 
the citizens by forced contributions. No line can be drawn 
in favor of the manufacturer which would not open the 
coffers of the public Treasury to the importunities of two- 
thirds of the business men of the city or town." 

Now I desire to ask my friend from Iowa [Mr. 
Perkins], does the Supreme Court state the truth, 
or are you in favor of a bounty on sugar ? 

Mr. Perkins. If the gentleman desires an an- 
swer I will give it. I do not live in Nebraska; I 
had no part in the legislation of that State placing 
a bounty on sugar. I do know, however, that in the 



38 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

State of Nebraska and in the State of Iowa this 
* ' highway robbery ' ' principle which the gentleman 
denounces is largely observed and applied in ail our 
communities. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentle- 
man will confine that statement to the district 
which he represents, and not extend it to our State. 

Mr. Perkins. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that 
is true in the city of Lincoln, and in the city of 
Omaha, as well in the city of Sioux City. I know 
that those communities are always glad and anxious 
to improve every opportunity to give a bounty to 
get a material industry into their midst. It is upon 
that principle that that great Western country has 
been built up and developed as it has been, and we 
apply the same principle in the Government of this 
great country. 

Mr. Harries. Will the gentleman answer a ques- 
tion? 

Mr. Perkins. I am not speaking in my own time. 

Mr. Bryan. You are welcome to all the time 
you want if you will talk in that way. 

Mr. Perkins. I have answered your question. 

Mr. Bryan. But the gentleman has not pre- 
sented an illustration of the principle for which 
he contends. I want him to point to an instance 
where the city of Sioux City, or the city of Lincoln, 
or any other city, has voted money raised by taxa- 
tion to aid a private enterprise. 

Mr. Perkins. I can say for my own city that 
we voted a tax to build railroad machine shops there 
on account of the labor and money that they would 
bring into the community, and we did it not as a 



THE TARIFF 39 

benefit to the railroad company but as a benefit to 
Sioux City. There is one illustration, and I can 
give more. 

Mr. Bryan. If the gentleman will read the de- 
cision of the Supreme Court which I have cited he 
will find that the court in discussing that question 
says that in every instance where a vote of bonds to 
aid a railroad company has been justified it has been 
justified upon the ground that a railroad is a ^public 
and not a private improvement. And, so far as I 
know, there is no instance on record where the courts 
of any State in the United States have declared a 
bonus given to a purely private industry to be con- 
stitutional and legitimate. 

Mr. Perkins. Take the matter of the beet-sugar 
industry. The gentleman knows that communities 
in Nebraska have given aid for the establishment 
of factories for that industry. 

]\Ir. Bryan. I will state to the gentleman that 
that was attempted in the case that came to the su- 
preme court of our State from Neligh. I had the 
honor to be one of the attorneys in the case and 
filed a brief against the bonds. The court held that 
the bonds voted were illegal. 

Mr. Harries. I was going to ask my friend, 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Perkins], a ques- 
tion; perhaps the gentleman from Nebraska can 
answer it. Do you think it will make the trees grow 
to give a bounty upon maple sugar ? 

Mr. Bryan. I do not know, but I suppose it is 
perfectly in harmony with the ''infant industry'^ 
plan that was presented in the McKinley bill and 



40 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

previous bills. They protect the ''infant indus- 
try" of boring holes into trees. 

On this question, I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, 
that the policy of the Democratic party is not hos- 
tility to industries. We welcome to this country 
every industry that can stand upon its feet ; but we 
do not welcome the industries that come to ride 
upon our backs. We do not desire to discourage in- 
dustries ; we desire to restore to them the ' ' lost art ' ' 
of self-support. We are not objecting to "infant 
industries ; ' ' but what we do say is that the public 
Treasury shall no longer stand sponsor by the cradle 
of every ''infant industry" born upon American 
soil. 

But, Mr. Chairman, to resume. I have said that 
the purpose of the protective tariff is to transfer 
money from one man's pocket to another man's 
pocket. I want to show to you and to this commit- 
tee that it is the only purpose a protective tariff 
can possibly have. Why do you impose a tariff? 
You impose it upon the theory that you cannot pro- 
duce in this country the article which you protect 
as cheaply as it can be produced abroad; and you 
put the tariff upon that article in order that the 
price of the article may be so much increased that 
American manufacturers can afford to produce it. 
You mean that the man who buys that article shall 
pay into the public Treasury the tariff upon the 
article, and you expect that this, together with the 
price, will be sufficient to protect somebody else. 

Is not that the purpose ? If not, why did the gen- 
tleman from Maine [Mr. Boutelle] ask to have the 
tariff taken off of building material when Eastport, 



THE TARIFF 41 

Me., was burned, or why give to the shipbuilders of 
Maine free building material, as suggested by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Turner] ? How do 
you protect the wool-grower except on the theory 
that foreign wool is made higher ? But why do you 
make a man pay more for the foreign article ? It is 
in order that your protected manufacturer may 
charge more for his product than he could charge 
without the tariff. That is the only justification; 
because if you say that you cannot produce the arti- 
cle as cheaply in this country as it is produced 
abroad, what benefit is it to you to have the outside 
article increased in price if you do not increase the 
price of the home-made article also ? 

The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] says 
that a couple of years ago he purchased a piece of 
calico in Manchester, England, and paid 5 cents a 
yard for it ; that the tariff on calico was 4 cents a 
yard, and that if the tariff were a tax it would make 
the price 9 cents ; but that, on the contrary, his wife 
purchased in a store in this city, a piece of calico of 
better quality for 5 cents a yard. Now I wish to 
ask you this: If you can produce and sell in this 
country a yard of calico at the same price per yard 
at which it is sold in England, the American calico 
being of better qualit3% why do you want a tariff of 
4 cents a yard to protect your calico ? 

I submit this proposition: Either a tariff is 
needed or it is not needed. If a tariff is needed, it is 
in order to add the amount of the tariff to the price 
of the home article to enable the American manufac- 
turer to compete with the foreign. If it is not 
needed, who is going to justify it ? Now, which horn 

17 



42 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

of the dilemma will you take? Will you say that 
this tariff is needed and used ; or will you say it is 
not needed and ought to be abolished ? 

If, then, that is the purpose of a tariff — to make 
the man who buys the protected article pay more 
for that article than he would pay without the tar- 
iff — it means simply this, that the law should trans- 
fer so much money from my pocket to the pocket 
of somebody else. You cannot in this way raise an 
"infant industry" without putting the burden 
somewhere. Whenever you see the Government by 
operation of law send a dollar singing down into 
one man 's pocket, you must remember that the Gov- 
ernment has brought it crying up out of some other 
man's pocket. You might just as well try to raise 
a weight with a lever without a fulcrum as try to 
help some particular industry by means of taxation 
without placing the burden upon the consumer. 

Back in Illinois when we were repairing a rail 
fence, we would sometimes find a corner down pretty 
low in the ground, and not wanting to tear down 
the fence we would raise that fence corner and put 
a new ground chunk under it. How did we do it? 
We took a rail, put one end of it imder the fence 
corner, then laid down a ground chunk for a ful- 
crum. Then we would go off to the end of the rail 
and bear down ; up would go the fence corner — but 
does anybody suppose there was no pressure on that 
fulcrum ? 

That, my friends, illustrates just the operation, 
as I conceive it, of a protective tariff. You want to 
raise an infant industry, for instance ; what do you 
do? You take a protective tariff for a lever, and 



THE TARIFF 43 

put one end of it under the infant industry that is 
to be raised. You look around for some good, fat, 
hearty consumer and lay him down for a ground 
chunk ; you bear down on the rail and up goes the 
infant industry, but down goes the ground chunk 
into the ground. 

The reason our friends justify the principle is 
that they see the infant industry rise, but they for- 
get the men upon whom they ar§ placing the bur- 
den. And the trouble with this count r;^ is that all 
over the land are the homes of forgotten men — men 
whose rights have been violated and whose interests 
have been disregarded in order that somebody else 
may be enriched. It is the principle that is involved 
in this little binding-twine bill. You see the indus- 
try that gets the $20,000, but you never think of 
the farmers who go down into their pockets and pay 
the little sums that make up the great amount. Is 
not that a fact ? Is not that the effect of the tariff ? 

The man who justifies protection as a principle 
must prove three things: He must prove that the 
principle is right ; that the policy is wise, and that 
the tax is necessary. 

No man on that side of the House in this session 
of Congress will stand up before you and justify a 
law that takes from one man one cent and gives it 
to another man if he will admit that that is the 
operation. Take an illustration : Here are ten men 
owning farms side by side. Suppose that nine of 
them should pass a resolution, "Resolved, That we 
will take the land of the tenth man and divide it 
among us. ' ' Who would justify such a transaction ? 
Suppose the nine men tell the tenth man that he 



44 , BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

will get it back in some way; that it is a great 
advantage to live amongst nine men who will thus 
be better off, and that indirectly he gets an advan- 
tage from the transaction ? 

How long do you suppose it would be before they 
would convince that man that they were right in 
taking his land? Would you, gentlemen, dare to 
justify that? You would not justify the taking of 
one square foot of his land. If you do not dare do 
that, how will you justify the taking of that which 
a man raises on his land, all that makes the land 
valuable? Where is the difference between the soil 
and the product of the soil? How can you justify 
the one if not the other ? 

]\Ir. Lind. Will the gentleman from Nebraska 
yield for another question? 

Mr. Bryan. Most willingly. 

Mr. Lind. I believe the gentleman from Ne- 
braska voted for a bill the other day taxing the 
public at large for the purchase of text-books for 
children who attend the public schools. How does 
he justify that? 

Mr. Bryan. I think, if I remember correctly, 
Mr. Chairman, that I have also paid a little tax 
for the support of public schools upon the theory 
that it was a public purpose, and I voted to buy 
school books upon the same theory. If I am wrong, 
I will be glad to be corrected. Did the gentleman 
from Minnesota vote for that with the understand- 
ing that it was for a public purpose or for a private 
purpose ? 

Mr. Lind. A public purpose. 

Mr. Bryan. Very well, then we agree. 



THE TARIFF 45 

Mr. Lind. But let me say in justice to myself 
that if the gentleman from Nebraska can convince 
me that a protective tariff, a protective policy, is 
not a public policy and beneficial to the people, and 
to the country as a whole, I will be a free trader 
with him. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that 
I want to take him quite that far, but I wish I 
could lead him to believe in a tariff for revenue 
only. 

Mr. Raines. And with incidental protection. 

Mr. Bryan. I will say this, that it makes a 
great deal difference with a man whether what has 
been done is the result of accident or design. If 
you levy a tariff for revenue, you will so arrange 
it as to raise a revenue and stop when you have 
raised revenue enough. But if you levy a tariff for 
protection you may so arrange the schedules as to 
make a heavy tax, raise but little revenue, and you 
never know when to stop. 

Mr. Raines. Does the gentleman claim that we 
are getting too much revenue now? 

Mr. Bryan. Perhaps not ; but you have reduced 
the revenue by increasing the taxes upon the people 
and that is what I object to. 

Mr. Raines. Will the gentleman allow me a 
question ? 

Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 

Mr. Raines. I would like the gentleman now, 
in order to clinch his argument, to answer this 
question: Can the gentleman point to any one 
single article produced in the United States in com- 
petition with a foreign article that has been in- 



46 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

creased in price by the McKinley tariff, or which 
is not actually cheaper to-day than it was prior to 
1860? 

Mr. BrYxVn. I will ask the gentleman if tin is 
manufactured in this country? 

IMr. Raines. Well, I have in my desk a list 
in a trade paper 

A Member. They are all on paper. 

Mr. Raines (continuing). A list of twenty- 
seven manufacturers of tin; but I want to say to 
the gentleman that no trade paper was ever printed 
that could contain a list of all the tinplate liars of 
the United States. 

Mr. Bryan. I suppose that paper, then, has no 
biographical sketch of my friend from New York. 
I will say, Mr. Chairman — and it will explain why 
I asked my friend from New York if we had any 
tin industries in this country — I have here a state- 
ment that the average price of tin plate for 1888 
was $4.45 a box. The average price for five years 
prior to July 1, 1890, was $4.45. The average price 
for 1891 was $5.68 a box. This was given on the 
authority of the Tin Plate Consumers' Association 
of the United States, which has in its ranks a large 
majority of those who use tin. And I will place 
this on record as my authority, against the state- 
ment of the gentleman that no article could be 
mentioned upon which the price had been increased. 
And I will go further and name, if he wishes, an 
article upon which the price has been reduced by 
the removal of the tariff, namely, sugar. 

Mr. Halvorson. And quinine. 

]\Ir. Raines. I wish to call the gentleman's 



THE TARIFF 47 

attention right here to the fact that in 1880 the 
foreign price of tin was $8.28 a box, and the Amer- 
ican price was $9.36 a box, while the price in 1891 
was $5.42 a box. 

Mr. Bryan. I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, for 
the information that the gentleman has injected 
into the body of my remarks. If he has the statis- 
tics in regard to the price in 1870 or in 1860, or in 
fact if he can give me the price of tin plate in 
1592 say, or 1492, it will be a matter of great inter- 
est to my people, and this speech is going to cir- 
culate among them. 

Mr. Eaines. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that 
the gentleman himself seems to be the one who is 
indulging in ancient history. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I am sure if I have 
indulged in ancient history, this House will not 
pardon me unless I have a better excuse than 
the gentleman from New York can furnish for 
his indulgence in ancient history. And on this 
point — I expected to come to it later, but it is made 
opportune by the remarks of the gentleman — I 
want to ask him if he believes the tariff upon tin 
plate had anything to do with the cheapening of 
the price of tin plate in this country ? 

Mr. Raines. I believe that the tariff upon tin 
will result in the establishment of an industry in 
the United States. 

A Member. Answer the question. 

Mr. Raines (continuing). And will recult in 
the keeping at home of thirty millions of dollars a 
year that have been sent abroad, and will give 
employment to 100,000 men in the industry, and 



48 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

will result in cheapening the price to the consum- 
ers in the United States. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
New York may well be pardoned, as the rest 
of his party may be, for indulging in prophecy 
rather than history since 1890. But that is not an 
answer to my question. He stated that the price 
of tin plate had been reduced in the last ten years. 
I ask him, and I expect a direct answer and no 
equivocation, whether in his opinion the tariff upon 
tin plate has reduced (not will reduce) the price 
of tin plate ? For that can be the only point to his 
remarks. 

Mr. Raines. I have given my answer. When 
the industry of tin plate is established in the United 
States — and three months ago there was not a gen- 
tleman on that side who would admit that there was 
or would be a tin plate factory in the United 
States 

Mr. Bryan. We will not admit it to-day, sir. 

Mr. Raines (continuing). When it is estab- 
lished in the United States the result will be just 
the same as it has been in the wire-nail industry, 
for you can buy wire nails to-day for less than the 
duty on nails. 

Mr. Bryan. If the gentleman does not desire to 
answer my first question and wants to branch off 
into the wire-nail subject, I assure him that one of 
the most pleasant entertainments I had in my dis- 
trict last campaign revolved around a wire nail. If 
he prefers to refer to that, let me ask him if he 
believes the reduction in the price of wire nails is 
due to a protective tariff? 



THE TARIFF 49 

Mr. Raines. Largely. 

Mr. Bryan. How largely ? What is the propor- 
tion? 

Mr. Raines. In that business I am laboring 
under the same difficulty that your majority of the 
Committee on Ways and Means are laboring, when 
in their report they say it is impossible to tell in 
what degree the tariff does affect either the increase 
or the reduction of the price of an article. 

Mr. Bryan. I will ask you to give your best 
judgment as to what proportion protection has re- 
duced the price of wire nails and the proportion in 
which other things have entered? 

Mr. Raines. I would like to ask the gentleman 
when he suggests 

Mr. Bryan. One thing at a time. 

Mr. Raines. I do not desire to interrupt the 
gentleman without his permission. 

Mr. Bryan. If the gentleman will answer my 
question I will continue to answer his questions as 
long as he puts them; but I do not want him to 
refuse to answer my question and then ask me a 
question. 

Mr. Raines. I do not want the gentleman to 
make an answer for me. 

Mr. Bryan. I will let you make an answer if 
you will. 

Mr. Raines. I was going to make an answer. 

Mr. Bryan. Then make an answer. 

Mr. Raines. I was going to make an answer in 
this way. I was going to ask the gentleman this. 
When he is buying a pound of wire nails for 2.8 



50 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

cents, on which the duty is 2 cents, what is he 
doing ? Is he buying nails or is he paying duty ? 

]\Ir. Bryan. I would like to ask the gentleman if 
his mind is so constructed that he considers that an 
answer to my question? Do you consider that an 
answer ? 

]\Ir. Raines. A reasonable one. 

Mr. Bryan. Then, I am glad to send that out 
to the people of Nebraska as an illustration of the 
astuteness of the mind of a distinguished New York 
Republican. 

Mr. Chairman, I think I can suggest to this 
House a reason why the gentleman from New York 
would not answer the question, I will give him the 
credit for more intelligence and less sincerity. The 
reason he would not answer that question is that he 
suspected that the next question would be: "If 
protection reduced the price of wire nails, and was 
put on for that purpose, and reduced the price of 
tin plate, and was put on for that purpose, why 
did the Republican party increase the tariff on 
wheat? Because they wanted to reduce the price? 
When a man defends a protective tariff on the 
theory that it reduces the price of the protected 
article, he wants the people of this country to 
believe that the manufacturer comes down to Con- 
gress and begs for a tariff on his article to de- 
crease the price of his article, and then begs for a 
tariff on agricultural products to increase their 
price. 

Mr. Raines. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest 
to the gentleman that in the majority report, 
wiiich he has signed, it is said that the tariff 



THE TARIFF 51 

actually did reduce the price of wool. You cannot 
get away from that ; you signed the report. 

Mr. Bryan. I said, Mr. Chairman, in the be- 
ginning, that there are wool growers in this country 
who believed that ; but the gentleman cannot dodge 
the logic of his position by any such subterfuge as 
that. The difficulty is, Mr. Chairman, that when a 
man gets up here to defend protection he would 
have you believe that the manufacturer's sole aim 
in life is to make his goods cheap, in order that he 
may pay high wages to labor ; and, as he cannot get 
them cheap enough otherwise, he asks Congress for 
a law to encourage competition, that he may be com- 
pelled to sell them cheaper. Now, if he is so anx- 
ious to cheapen goods to the people, why does he 
not simply reduce the price and not beg for a law 
to compel him to do it? 

But, Mr. Chairman, as Plutarch would say, I 
digress. I was saying Avhen interrupted that the 
man who defends the principle of protection must 
justify the taking of one man's money and putting 
it into another man's pocket. He must justify the 
appropriation by legislation of a part of the pro- 
ceeds of our daily toil to somebody else as a benefit, 
and yet there is this difference between the case 
which I cited, of nine men getting together and 
taking the land of the tenth man and dividing it 
among them by resolution, and the case of pro- 
tection. In that we have one man getting together 
and taking the property of the nine men by reso- 
lution and dividing it among ''him." [Laughter.] 

It has been said that a slave was a slave simply 
because 100 per cent, of the proceeds of his toil was 



52 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

appropriated by somebody without his consent. If 
the law is such that a portion of the proceeds of 
our toil is appropriated by somebody else without 
our consent, we are simply to that extent slaves, as 
much so as were the colored men. And yet this 
party, that boasts that it struck the shackles from 
4,000,000 slaves, insists on driving the fetters 
deeper into the flesh of 65,000,000 of free men. 

But Mr. Chairman [looking at the clock. Cries 
of ''Go on!"], if it is difficult to defend this on 
principle, it is equally difficult to defend it as a 
policy. I make this assertion, that if it is wise 
to appropriate money out of the public Treasury 
to aid a private enterprise, then it is wiser for a 
town than for a county. It is wiser for a county 
than for a State. For a Congress of restricted and 
delegated powers, whose members are far removed 
from the people, it is most unwise of all to vote 
away the public money for private purposes. So 
that, if that policy is wise at all, this is the last 
place to apply the principle. 

We would not dare to trust that policy in our 
county or our town; and my friend from Sioux 
City has not pointed to an instance where it has 
been done at public expense. The difference be- 
tween voting public money for private purposes 
and taking up a subscription voluntarily is so wide, 
that I do not believe there is a gentleman upon the 
other side who does not see it. Why would yon 
not trust it at home ? Because you know that there 
would go before that council, or before the county 
commissioners, only the men who want something, 
only those men and their paid attorneys would go 



THE TARIFF 53 

there to represent the great advantage that the pro- 
posed industry would be to the community, while 
the other side would never be heard. 

Although you walk the streets with your coun- 
eilmen every day ; although they are your constant 
companions ; well as you know them, as much con- 
fidence as you have in them, you would not dare 
to trust them in that way, because you know that 
when men come to vote money for private pur- 
poses, when they come to this special legislation, 
there are always special influences at work on the 
side of the strong and powerful, while, on the other 
hand, those who — 

Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, 
Keep — 

— the noiseless tenor of their way 

are never heard, although it is upon them that the 
burden resulting from such special legislation ulti- 
mately rests. Therefore, honest as your council- 
men might be, desirous of doing right as they 
would be, you would feel that you could not, that 
you must not trust them with such power. And 
yet gentlemen will tell you that what they would 
not trust to their local authorities at home, what 
they would not dare to approve as a local matter 
in Sioux City or in Lincoln, they think right and 
proper here. 

Mr. Perkins. If the gentleman will excuse 
me for interrupting, I will give him this further 
illustration. A Democratic city council in Sioux 
City, a body in which only one Republican was sit- 
ting, has voted for the last two years $50 a month 
out of the public funds to assist in the maintenance 



54 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

of a jobbers and manufacturers' association in 
Sioux City. That is one illustration of voting pub- 
lie money to sustain a private organization, and it 
was done by a Democratic council containing only 
one Republican. 

Mr. Bryan. It is a great credit to that city 
council that it has such a large majority of Demo- 
crats, and a credit to Sioux city also, but 

Mr. Perkins. If the gentleman will excuse 
me again, I will state that in the election held the 
other day the proportions w^ere reversed. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the 
news must go out over this great country that 
Sioux City is on the decline. But until the gentle- 
man has shown where the right to vote that money 
has been sanctioned by law he cannot cite the case 
as a precedent. 

Mr. Stackhouse. Probably those councilmen 
were turned out by the people because they had 
done that. 

Mr. Bryan. Yes, as the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Stackhouse] suggests, probably the 
result of the recent election was due to the fact 
that they had disregarded their duty to their peo- 
ple. I think I recall a case where some city in 
Minnesota voted a certain bounty for a saloon to 
open in its midst, but my recollection is that the 
Supreme Court decided that that was hardly a pub- 
lic improvement or a public purpose. 

Mr. Lind. I want to say to my friend that that 
must have been in some other State, because in our 
State we tax a saloon a minimum sum of $500 for 
the privilege of existing. 



THE TxVRIFF 55 

Mr. Bryan. That tax may have made it all 
the more necessary that the bounty should be given 
before the saloon would open. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the committee will pardon 
me for detaining them so long (cries of '*Go on!" 
''Go on!") I want to say that it is as difficult to 
defend the necessity for a tariff as it is to defend 
its principle or its policy. And this brings me to 
another contradiction which we often find in the 
arguments of our Republican friends. If you ask 
them why they need a tariff they at once tell you 
that we pay so much better wages in this country 
than are paid abroad that we can not compete, and 
that until we are willing to reduce the wages of our 
workingmen we never can compete. That is a very 
plausible argument to start with, but then comes 
along some person who asks a question something 
like that asked yesterday by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Grain] of the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts [Mr. Walker]. The gentleman from 
Texas asks, "Does not that protection make the 
price of goods higher in this country than abroad ? ' ' 
*'No, sir," says Mr. Walker. "Everything that a 
man uses, except woolen goods, is cheaper in this 
country than it is abroad." 

Now, to an "untutored mind," such as we are 
told new members possess, it would seem that if 
you need protection to labor in this country because 
labor is higher, that idea is hardly consistent, upon 
the Republican theory, with a cheaper product. 
Yet the same gentleman who yesterday told you that 
we must have a tariff to protect the laboring men in 
this country told you that the laboring men of this 



56 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

country were producing articles cheaper than the 
laboring men of other countries. 

I want to call attention — it is with some diffidence 
I assure you, after the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts [Mr. Walker] has said that it is nothing but 
"nonsense" — I want to call attention, however, so 
that those may consider it who are not inclined to 
look upon it as "nonsense," to what Hon. William 
M. Evarts said when he was Secretary of State, in 
his report in 1879. He says: 

"The average American workman performs from one and 
a half to twice as much work in a given time as the aver- 
age European workman. This is so important a point in 
connection with our ability to compete with the cheap labor 
manufactures of Europe, and it seems at first thought so 
strange that I will trouble you with somewhat lengthy quo- 
tations from the reports in support thereof." 

That was the statement of the Republican Sec- 
retary of State. And I hope that none of my 
Republican friends will reflect upon the next 
authority I shall quote, Hon. James G. Blaine, who, 
when Secretary of State, said : 

"Undoubtedly the inequalities in wages of English and 
American operatives (that is, in cotton manufactures) are 
more than equalized by the greater efficiency of the latter 
and their longer hours of labor. If this should prove to 
be a fact in practise, as it seems to me to be proven by 
official statistics, it would be a very important element in 
the establishment of our ability to compete with England 
for our share of the Cotton-goods trade of the World." 

Henry Clay said in the Senate in 1832 — sixty 
years age 



"I have before me another statement of a practical and 
respectable man, well versed in the flannel manufacture in 
America and England, demonstrating that the cost of manu- 
facture is precisely the same in both countries." 



THE TARIFF 57 

Are we less independent because of the protection 
we have had? Mr. J. B. Sargent, of New Haven, 
has been engaged for thirty years in the hardware 
business, being one of the largest manufacturers 
in the world of locks, bolts, builders' and furniture 
hardware, and, in certain lines, of carpenters' tools. 
He employs from fifteen hundred to two thousand 
men. He has nearly 12 acres of ground under roof. 
His daily output is nearly 50 tons of goods per 
day. He says in regard to the cost of manufactur- 
ing in this country : 

"American manufacturers can successfully compete in 
any market where skilled labor is the test in spite of the 
low pay for which men work in China, in India, and in 
every country where labor is debased. My observation has 
taught me that the greatest obstacle to American competi- 
tion in foreign markets to nearly every class of goods is 
the high price of our raw material. Take off the duty and 
we will send our goods everywhere. Wages would increase 
here under such a system rather than become lower." 

Now these are the statements, cool and unimpas- 
sioned, of officials and men in position to know. I 
submit to you, my friends, that those statements are 
amply borne out by the illustrations of the gentle- 
man from Maine [Mr.DiNGLEv] and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr .Walker] when they tell 
you that notwithstanding the greater wages paid, 
the actual product in this country is cheaper than 
it is in Europe. If that be true, then where is your 
need of protection? If that be true, then who can 
justify the imposition of a tariff on the ground that 
it is necessary to protect the laboring men in this 
country ? 

Mr. Chairman, the laborer has been used as a cats- 
paw to draw chestnuts out of the fire for the manu- 

18 



58 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

facturer. The manufacturer comes here and pleads 
for a protective tariff in order that he may give 
employment with remunerative prices to labor. 
You give him the protection he asks ; you make him 
a trustee for the benefit of his employee; you give 
to that employee no law by which he can enforce 
his trust. The manufacturer goes back to his fac- 
tory and puts in his pocket the bonus you have 
given him. And then the employee pleads, and 
pleads in vain, for his portion of the promised 
benefits. 

I will tell you a story. I do not know whether 
you allow stories here [cries of "Go on!"], but 
there is a story which to my mind illustrates this 
point. A white boy said to a colored boy, ' ' Let 's go 
into cahoots and go a coon hunting ; you furnish the 
dog and climb the tree, and I'll do the hollering." 
They went. The white boy * ' hollered ' ' ; the colored 
boy furnished the dog and climbed the tree. They 
caught three coons. When they came to divide, 
the white boy took them all. The colored boy 
asked, ''What am I going to have?" *'Why," 
said the white boy, "you get the cahoots." 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the manufacturer has been 
making just such combination or partnership with 
his employee. The manufacturer says to his work- 
man, "You come on and furnish the dog and climb 
the tree ; you bring out the votes ; and I will do the 
talking." They get their coons — they have been 
getting them. But compelled to put up with the 
"cahoots." Yes, and when the employee asks for 
the higher wages that w^ere promised him last year, 
you find Pinkerton detectives stationed to keep 



THE TARIFF 59 

him off and foreigners brought in to supply his 
place. 

Why do we need a contract-labor law ? It is to 
prevent the protected industries of this country 
from sending abroad to get cheap labor to take 
the place of American labor. Is not that the result ? 
Were we not promised last year just what the gen- 
tleman from New York tells us to-day will still come 
by and by? The *' sweet by and by" has been the 
hope of the people for these thirty years ; the ^ ' pres- 
ent" has been the enjoyment of the men who made 
the promises. 

We were told of the number of laborers to be em- 
ployed because of the McKinley bill; yet scarcely 
had the bill passed when there appeared in New 
York an advertisement for laborers to make tin 
plate ; and the point of it was the statement that they 
would be paid higher prices than laborers were paid 
in Wales. Why was that stated in New York, ex- 
cept with a view to having that paper sent to Wales 
and importing here the labor to make these goods 1 

No, my friends, the manufacturer has not dealt 
fairly and honestly with the employee. What has 
been the result? Who has been getting the bene- 
fit ? Is it the great mass of our people ? Are they 
the ones that have profited by this transaction ? If, 
Mr. Chairman, you undertook, by the method pro- 
posed awhile ago, to raise money by passing around 
a hat in this body for some protected friend or some 
one you wished to benefit, what would be the result 
of your efforts ? If you passed it often enough you 
would get all the money we had in our pockets, and 
the man to whom you gave it would have all you col- 



60 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

lected ; and if we did not get out of money it would 
be because while you were emptying the hat we 
would be scratching around to get the next contri- 
bution ready, while the man to whom you gave it 
would get rich without having to scratch at all. 
Thus this system has operated. You have built up 
wealth in this country to a degree unparalleled in 
the history of the United States or of the world. 

These men tell us that they cannot live without 
the collections they make ; and yet they are the ones 
who build their stately palaces, who give their ban- 
quets, which rival in magnificence the banquets of 
ancient times. These are the men who can gather 
around a banquet board as they did, I think it was 
in New York, to celebrate ''home industries" at 
$10 per plate, when within a stone 's throw of their 
banquet hall were people to whom a 10-cent meal 
would be a luxury. Yes, sir, you take the statistics 
furnished by Mr. Shearman in the Forum, and he 
shows that 25,000 people own one-half of the wealth 
of this country, and 65,000,000 of people divide the 
other half between them. 

If, Mr. Chairman, you should ask the friend re- 
ceiving the contributions which you were supposed 
a moment ago to gather here and give to him, I pre- 
sume he would tell you it was the best system of 
government ever invented. I am not surprized that 
a man like Mr. Carnegie is willing to write articles 
in monthly magazines to show w^hat a great benefit 
of a protective system. But, Mr. Chairman, I ask 
you whether the people who pay this money believe 
that it is a good system? You went before them: 
a year ago ; you took your idea of a protective tariff 



THE TARIFF 61 

with you, and said to them: "This, gentlemen, is 
the way we bring relief to the people." You said 
in your report ' ' agriculture is depressed, ' ' and then 
you applied as a remedy the earliest practise known 
to surgery. "Bleed him again." 

Under your protective party banner you went to 
the country and boasted that you had fastened on 
the people a law which they could not change for 
ten years. But you were as ignorant of the power 
of the people as you were careless of their welfare. 
You say that we deceived them; that we exceeded 
you in misrepresentation. You have the consolation 
of knowing that if we did it was the first time we 
ever went beyond you in that respect. But we did 
not. Because as a successful fabricator the average 
Republican will be recognized as one the latchet 
of whose shoes we are unworthy to unloose. 

No ; the people knew what you were doing ; they 
knew what you had done, and they rose in their 
might and hurled you from power ; and to-day the 
once proud Republican party, that used to take the 
election of President as a matter of course, thinks it 
worth while to announce to this body through the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Raines] that the 
Republican party has made a gain in supervisors 
in New York. 

Mr. Raines. Let me suggest to the gentleman 
that all the people are getting as a result of the 
change is free wool, free binding-twine, and free 
cotton-ties. 

Mr. Bryan. I only hope, Mr. Chairman, that 
what the gentleman says is true, and that they will 
get these things. I hope that the body at the other 



62 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

end of this Capitol, which differs from us in the 
political complexion of its majority, will not stand 
between the people and this relief. 

Yes, sir ; they boasted that nothing could be done ; 
that they had the people bound hand and foot. 
Where are those conspirators today? Where the 
men who were the most largely instrumental in fast- 
ening that iniquitous legislation on this country? 
When they w^ent back to their people the expression 
of confidence was in the other man. 

Mr. Eaines. One of them is governor of Ohio. 

Mr. Bryan. Yes; I believe he did succeed in 
being elected governor of a Republican State. 

Mr. Davis. By a minority vote. 

Mr. Bryan Yes, by a minority vote. And to 
such extremity has this great Caesar come that he 
welcomes the holding of a Republican State now 
more than before he boasted of the conquest of a 
nation. We do not feel unkindly toward our friend 
from Maine, the ex-Speaker, although he seems more 
sensitive to remarks now than when in the chair. 
And he has rather contradicted the statement that 
the ' ' leopard can not change his spots, " or a person 
his skin. He seems to have made some kind of an 
exchange by which he got one much thinner than 
the one he wore two years ago. 

A Member. A thinner hide. 

Mr. Bryan. We shall not find fault with him 
if he consumes much of his time, as he gazes around 
upon the chairs once occupied by his faithful com- 
panions, in recalling those beautiful words of the 
poet Moore : 



THE TARIFF 63 

'Tis the last rose of summer, loft blooming alone, 
All her lovely companions have faded and gone, 
No flower of her kindred, no rosebud is nigh 
To reflect back her blushes, or give sigh for sigh. 

And it is barely possible that the great revolution 
which began a year ago may some time reach even 
to the coast of Maine ; and for the good of the coun- 
try, but perhaps for the injury of our party — be- 
cause he has been a faithful friend to us, and in 
the language of another noted gentleman from 
Maine, ' ' has done us a great favor without knowing 
it" 

Mr. Wheeler of Alabama. Without intend- 
ing it. 

Mr. Bryan. The time may come, I say, when 
his constituents will address him in the language 
of that other verse, as beautiful in words and as 
appropriate in sentiment — 

I'll not leave thee, thou lone one, to pine on the stem ; 
Since the lovely are sleeping, go sleep thou with them. 
Thus kindly I scatter thy leaves o'er the bed 
Where thy mates of the garden lie scentless and dead. 

Mr. Chairman, some reference has been made to 
the effect of a protective tariff upon manufactured 
articles, and the argument has been advanced that 
the aim and results are to reduce the price of pro- 
tected articles to the consumer. I want to say to you 
that such was never the intention of a protective 
tariff upon the part of those who supported it ; and 
that if the price is reduced, it comes as the effect 
of improved machinery, and not as the effect of a 
law which enables the manufacturer to sell here 
protected from competition, while he often sells 
abroad in competition with the world. The gentle- 



64 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

man will tell us that goods are cheaper to-day than 
they were thirty years ago. It is true. But if pro- 
tection did it, let him explain why it is that not only 
here, where we have protection, but in England, 
where they have free trade, goods are cheaper than 
they were before. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Walker] told us that steel rails had fallen in 
price because of a protective tariff. 

I will append to my remarks a schedule given by 
Mr. Carlisle in an article in the Forum, in which 
he shows the price of steel rails in England from 
1871 to 1882, and the price of steel rails in this coun- 
try during that time, and the amount consumed. 
This shows what the Englishman paid for them, and 
also what the American paid for the same amount 
of rails. And when you add up the difference you 
find that in these ten or eleven years the American 
people paid $159,000,000 more for their steel rails 
than the English people paid. And yet you say 
that protection makes them cheaper. 

During all that time they were cheaper in Eng- 
land. Is your system such a one that it will take 
hold of a price and pull it down in this country, and 
then, not satisfied with that, go over to some for- 
eign country, grab the price there and pull it do^vn ? 
And then, not satisfied with that, will it pull down 
the price in foreign countries more than it pulls 
it down in this country? Some one has said that 
the onion is a vegetable that makes the man sick 
who does not eat it. It would seem that protection 
does the greatest good to the country that does not 
have it. 



THE TARIFF 65 

Until you explain what it is that reduces the price 
of steel rails and other manufactured products, not 
here alone, but all over the world, you cannot at- 
tribute it to a protective tariff ; but you must attrib- 
ute it rather to the inventive genius that has mul- 
tiplied a thousand times, in many instances, the 
strength of a single arm, and enabled us to do to- 
day with one man what fifty men could not do fifty 
years ago. That is w^hat has brought the price down 
in this country and everywhere, and so far from the 
protective tariff helping it, it has stood as a bar and 
prevented us, step by step, from taking advantage 
of the inventive genius of other countries. It has 
compelled us, each time and all the time when it 
has benefited the protected industry, to pay more 
for those same things than the people elsewhere. 

I asked my friend from Maine [Mr. Dingley], 
when he was telling us of the benefits of protection, 
if a man in this country bought his goods as cheaply 
as in England, and he said while we might get them 
at a higher price in dollars, that we got them 
cheaper in labor, and that labor was the only stand- 
ard of measurement. Then I asked him — I will 
append to my speech the exact language of the 
question and answer — I asked him w^hether, if the 
farmer in Nebraska w^ent to sell his wheat and to 
exchange the price he obtained for it for woolen 
clothing, he would get as much woolen clothing as 
the English farmer would get for the same amount 
of wheat when he went to exchange his product. 
You remember the answer. There was no direct 
answer, but, like my friend from New York [Mr. 
Raines], he spurned the present and soared with 



66 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

outstretched wings into the dismal future, and told 
us that if we got free trade, then he would not. I 
ask, how is it to-day ? We have had enough of your 
prophecies. We want to come down and find what 
are doing noiv. 

His answer, if it was an answer, must be con- 
strued to mean that while the farmer in Nebraska 
had to pay more wheat for the same amount of 
clothes than the English farmer, he got it back in 
other ways. That, being surrounded by the bene- 
fits of protection, he absorbed through his skin, as it 
were, what he paid out of his pocket. Living in an 
atmosphere of protection, forced upon this country 
by philanthropists who tell you, as the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Walker] did, that free 
trade would help manufacturers — but he so loves 
the great mass of the people that he does not dare 
to give himself the benefit — living surrounded by 
these elevated minds, you breathe in an atmos- 
phere that far more than compensates for all you 
lose. 

Now, there are two arguments which I have 
never heard advanced in favor of protection; but 
they are the best arguments. They admit a fact and 
justify it, and I think that is the best way to argue, 
if you have a fact to meet. Why not say to the 
farmer, * ' Yes, of course you lose ; but does not the 
Bible say, ' It is more blessed to give than to receive ' 
— and if you suffer some inconvenience, just look 
back over your life and you will find that your 
happiest moments were enjoyed when you were 
giving something to somebody, and the most un- 
pleasant moments were when you were receiving." 



THE TARIFF 67 

These manufacturers are self-sacrificing. They are 
willing to take the lesser part, and the more un- 
pleasant business of receiving, and leave to you 
the greater joy of giving. 

Why do they not take the other theory, wh"ch is 
borne out by history — that all nations which have 
grown strong, powerful and influential, just as in- 
dividuals have done it, through hardship, toil and 
sacrifice, and that after they have become wealthy 
they have been enervated, they have gone to decay 
through the enjoyment of luxury, and that the 
great advantage of the protective system is that it 
goes around among the people and gathers up 
their surplus earnings so that they w^ill not be 
enervated or weakened, so that no legacy of evil 
will be left to their children. Their surplus earn- 
ings are collected up, and the great mass of our 
people are left strong, robust and hearty. These 
earnings are garnered and put into the hands of 
just as few people as possible, so that the injury 
will be limited in extent. And they say, "Yes, of 
course, of course ; it makes dudes of our sons, and 
it does, perhaps, compel us to buy foreign titles 
for our daughters [laughter], but of course if the 
great body of the people are benefited, as good, 
patriotic citizens we ought not to refuse to bear the 
burden." 

Why do they not do that ? They simply come to 
you and tell you that they want a high tariff to 
make low prices, so that the manufacturer will be 
able to pay large wages to his employees. And 
then, they Avant a high tariff on agricultural prod- 
ucts, so that they will have to buy what they buy 



68 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

at the highest possible price. They teli you that 
a tariff oq wool is for the benefit of the farmer, 
and goes into his pocket, but that the tariff on 
manufactured products goes into the farmer's 
pocket, too, "and really hurts us, but we will 
stand it if we must." They are much like a cer- 
tain maiden lady of uncertain age, who said, * ' This 
being the third time that my beau has called, he 
might make some affectionate demonstration ' ' ; and, 
summing up all her courage, she added. "I have 
made up my mind that if he does I will bear it with 
fortitude. ' ' 

Mr. Chairman [looking at the clock — cries of 
"Go on!"], if there is no limit to your patience 
there is a limit to my strength, and I will not claim 
your attention much longer. But I desire to say 
here, Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Bushnell. Let the committee rise, and close 
in the morning. 

Mr. Bryan. I preter to finish to-night if gen- 
tlemen are willing to listen. [Cries of " Go ahead ! "] 

I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that this Republi- 
can party, which is responsible for the present sys- 
tem, has stolen from the vocabulary one of its dear- 
est words and debased its use. Its orators have 
prated about home industries while they have 
neglected the most important of home industries — 
the home of the citizen. The Democratic party, so 
far from being hostile to the home industries, is the 
only champion, unless our friends here, the Inde- 
pendents, will join with us, of the real home indus- 
try of this country. 

When some young man selects a young woman 



THE TARIFF 69 

wlio is willing to trust her future to his strong 
right arm, and they start to build a little home, 
that home which is the unit of society and upon 
which our Government and our prosperity must 
rest — when they start to build this little home, and 
the man who sells the lumber reaches out his hand 
to collect a tariff upon that; the man who sells 
paints and oils wants a tariff upon them ; the man 
who furnishes the carpets, table-cloths, knives, forks, 
dishes, furniture, spoons, everything that enters 
into the construction and operation of that home 
— when all these hands, I say, are stretched out 
from every direction to lay their blighting weight 
upon that cottage, and the Democratic party says, 
* ' Hands off, and let that home industry live, ' ' it is 
protecting the grandest home industry that this or 
any other nation ever had. 

And I am willing that you, our friends on the 
other side, shall have what consolation you may 
gain from the protection of those ''home indus- 
tries" which have crowned with palatial residences 
the hills of New England, if you will simply give 
us the credit of being the champions of the homes 
of this land. It would seem that if any appeal 
could find a listening ear in this legislative hall it 
ought to be the appeal that comes up from those 
co-tenants of earth's only paradise; but your party 
has neglected them ; more, it has spurned and spit 
upon them. When they asked for bread you gave 
them a stone, and when they asked for a fish you 
gave them a serpent. You have laid upon them 
Tburdens grievous to be borne. You have filled their 
days with toil and their nights with anxious care, 



70 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

and when they cried aloud for relief you were deaf 
to their entreaties. 

It is said that when Ulysses was approaching the 
island of the Sirens, warned beforehand of their 
seductive notes, he put wax in the ears of his 
sailors and then strapped himself to the mast of 
the ship, so that, hearing, he could not heed. So 
our friends upon the other side tell us that there 
is depression in agriculture, and a cry has come 
up from the people ; but the leaders of your party 
have, as it were, filled with wax the ears of their 
associates, and then have so tied themselves, by 
promises made before the election to the protected 
interests, that, hearing, they can not heed. 

Out in the West the people have been taught to 
worship this protection. It has been a god to 
many of them. But I believe, Mr. Chairman, that 
the time for worship has passed. It is said that 
there is in Australia what is known as the cannibal 
tree. It grows not very high, and spreads out its 
leaves like great arms until they touch the ground. 
In the top is a little cup, and in that cup a mys- 
terious kind of honey. Some of the natives wor- 
ship the tree, and on their festive days they gather 
around it, singing and dancing, and then, as a part 
of their ceremony, they select one from their num- 
ber, and, at the point of spears, drive him up over 
the leaves onto the tree; he drinks of the honey, 
he becomes intoxicated as it were, and then those 
arms, as if instinct with life, rise up ; they encircle 
him in their folds, and, as they crush him to death, 
his companions stand around shouting and sing- 
ing for joy. 



THE TARIFF 71 

Protection has been our cannibal tree, and as one 
after another of our farmers has been driven by 
the force of circumstances upon that tree and has 
been crushed within its folds his companions have 
stood around and shouted, '^ Great is protection!" 

But the dream has passed, the night is gone, and 
in the East we see more than the light of coming 
day. A marvelous change has taken place, and, 
rising from the political mourners' benches 
throughout the Northwest, their faces radiant with 
a new-found joy, multitudes are ready to declare 
their allegiance to the cause of tariff reform. 

And if you believe, gentlemen, as you have so 
often professed to believe, that your political dis- 
figurement is simply temporary, or if you console 
yourselves with the idea that the Lord is only 
chastising those whom he loves — if so, it is the 
most affectionate demonstration known to political 
history — you are making a grave mistake. 

We have heard from that side of the House 
twice, I think, recently that *' truth is eternally 
triumphant." That is true; and while the proposi- 
tion may describe the success of the Democratic 
party in 1890 and give us encouragement to hope 
that that success will continue, I want to suggest 
to our friends over there a quotation that is far 
more appropriate to describe the condition of the 
Republican party. It is this: *' Though justice 
has leaden feet, it has an iron hand." You rioted 
in power, you mocked the supplication of the peo- 
ple, you denied their petitions, and now you have 
felt their wrath. At last justice has overtaken 
you, and now you are suffering the penalty that 



72 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

must sooner or later overtake the betraj'er of a 
public trust. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the overthrow of 
the Republican party is not temporary but per- 
manent. As the poet has beautifully expressed it: 

Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again ; 

Th' eternal years of God are hers; 
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, 

And dies among his worshipers. 

Mr. Clarkson, high Republican authority, has 
told us that the young men of the country are 
becoming Democrats. Why ? Because we are right. 
And when you find where the young men of the 
country are going, you can rest assured that that 
party is going to succeed. Why are we right ? 
Because, Mr. Chairman, we are demanding for 
this people equal and exact justice to every man, 
%voman, and child. We desire that the laws of this 
country shall not be made, as they have been, to 
enable some men to get rich while many get 
poor. 

I will append to my speech statistics from seven 
States, furnished by the Census Bureau, showing 
the proportion of those who in 1880 rented their 
farms and the proportion who rented in 1890. 
These statistics are only partial, embracing in some 
States only a few counties. I was told by the 
official who gave them to me that they might be 
changed a little by verification, but that they were 
substantially correct. I want the people of this 
country to read these statistics and understand 
what they mean. In ten counties in the State of 
Kansas the proportion of those renting their farms 



THE TARIFF 73 

increased from 13.13 in 1880 to 35.25 per cent, in 
1890; and 64.38 per cent, of the farms are mort- 
gaged. Yet they tell us that they are protecting 
' ' infant industries. ' ' 

Why, sir, these mortgages are held in the East; 
and if these manufacturing States, when their in- 
dustries are "infants," own themselves and have 
a mortgage on us, what is going to be the result 
when they get full grown? 

In Ohio in ten counties the proportion of renters 
in 1880 was 24.96 per cent. ; in 1890, 37.10 per cent. 
In five counties of Virginia in 1880 the proportion 
was 15.20 per cent.; in 1890, 20.20 per cent.; in 
New York in eight counties 18.20 per cent, in 1880, 
24 per cent, in 1890 ; in Massachusetts in ten coun- 
ties 6.70 per cent, in 1880, and 14.20 per cent, in 
1890; in Rhode Island in four counties 19.50 per 
cent, in 1880, 23.25 per cent, in 1890 ; in Maine in 
six counties 2.50 per cent, in 1880, 7.33 per cent, 
in 1890. 

Thus in every State, so far as these statistics 
have been collected, the proportion of home-owning 
farmers is decreasing and that of tenant farmers 
increasing. This means but one thing; it means a 
land of landlords and tenants ; and, backed by the 
history of every nation that has gone down, I say 
to you that no people can continue a free people 
under a free government when the great majority 
of its citizens are tenants of a small minority. 
Your system has driven the farm-owner from his 
land and substituted the farm tenant. 

Mr. Chairman, just a word more, and I am 
through. You can, if you likQ, build up these 

19 



74 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

** infant industries," if your country is willing to 
pay the price. A good many years ago a colored 
man, whose child had the whooping-cough, went to 
his physician and laid the matter before him. The 
doctor looked very wise for a moment and then 
said: "Take three hairs out of the back of your 
mule and lay them on the child ; 3^ou will cure the 
child, but you will kill the mule." The man 
thought of his love for his child and his need for 
the mule, and said: "Doctor, I'se poor; I can't 
afford ter lose de mule." Yes, my friend, you can 
build up your "infant industries" if you will, if 
you are willing to risk the destruction of the peo- 
ple. But I say that the country is poor; it can- 
not afford to lose its common people; it cannot 
spare the men who will thus be sacrificed. Well 
has the poet said: 

111 fares the land, to hastenins; ills a prey, 
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay. 
Princes and lords may flourish or may fade — 
A breath can make them, as a breath has made ; 
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride. 
When once destroy'd, can never be supplied. 

We cannot afford to destroy the peasantry of 
this country. We cannot afford to degrade the 
common people of this land, for they are the peo- 
ple who in time of prosperity and peace produce 
the wealth of the country, and they are also the 
people who in time of war bare their breasts to 
a hostile fire in defense of the flag. Go to Arling- 
ton or to any of the national cemeteries, see there 
the plain white monuments which mark the place 
"where rest the ashes of the nation's countless 



THE TARIFF 75 

dead," those of whom the poet has so beautifully 

written : 

On Fame's eternal camping-ground 
Their silent tents are spread. 

Who were they? Were they the beneficiaries of 
special legislation? Were they the people who are 
ever clamoring for privileges? No, my friends; 
those who come here and obtain from Government 
its aid and help find in time of war too great a 
chance to increase their wealth to give much atten- 
tion to military duties. A nation's extremity is 
their opportunity. They are the ones who make 
contracts, carefully drawn, providing for the pay- 
ment of their money in coin, while the Government 
goes out, if necessary, and drafts the people and 
makes them lay down upon the altar of their coun- 
try all they have. No; the people who fight the 
battles are largely the poor, the common people 
of the country; those who have little to save but 
their honor, and little to lose but their lives. These 
are the ones, and I say to you, sir, that the country 
cannot afford to lose them. I quote the language 
of Pericles in his great funeral oration. He says: 

"It was for such a country, then, that these men, nobly 
resolving not to have it taken from them, fell fighting ; and 
every one of their survivors may well be willing to suffer 
in its behalf." 

That, Mr. Chairman, is a noble sentiment and 
points the direction to the true policy for a free 
people. It must be by beneficent laws, it must be 
by a just government which a free people can love 
and upon which they can rely that the nation is 
to be preserved. We cannot put our safety in a 



76 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

great navy; we cannot put our safety in expensive 
fortifications along a seacoast thousands of miles 
in extent, nor can we put our safety in a great 
standing army that would absorb in idleness the 
toil of the men it protects. A free government 
must find its safety in happy and contented citi- 
zens, who, protected in their rights and free from 
unnecessary burdens, will be willing to die that 
the blessings which they enjoy may be transmitted 
to their posterity. 

Thomas Jefferson, that greatest of statesmen 
and most successful of politicians, tersely exprest 
the true purpose of government when he said: 

"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to 
make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing 
more, fellow citizens ; a wise and frugal government, which 
shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave 
them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of in- 
dustry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth 
of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good 
government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our 
felicities." 

That is the inspiration of the Democratic party ; 
that is its aim and object. If it comes, Mr. Chair- 
man, into power in all the departments of this 
Government it will not destroy industry; it will 
not injure labor; but it will save to the men who 
produce the wealth of the country a larger portion 
of that wealth. It will bring prosperity and joy and 
happiness, not to a few, but to every one without re- 
gard to station or condition. The day will come, Mr. 
Chairman — the day will come when those who an- 
nually gather about this Congress seeking to use the 
taxing power for private purposes will find their oc- 



THE TARIFF 77 

cupation gone, and the members of Congress will 
meet here- to pass laws for the benefit ot all tne 
people. That day will come, and in that day to 
use the language of another, ''Democracy will be 
king ! Long live the king ! ' ' 




II 

BIMETALISM 

Delivered In Congress on Angust 16, 1893, in opposition 
to the bill to repeal the purchasing clause of the Sherman 
act, and containing a general discussion of bimetalism. 

E. SPEAKER: I shall accomplish my full 
purpose if I am able to impress upon the 
members of the House the far-reaching 
consequences which may follow our action and 
quicken their appreciation of the grave responsibil- 
ity which presses upon us. Historians tell us that 
the victory of Charles Martel at Tours determined 
the history of all Europe for centuries. It was a 
contest ''between the Crescent and the Cross," and 
when, on that fateful day, the Frankish prince 
drove back the followers of Abderrabman he res- 
cued the West from ''the all-destroying grasp of 
Islam, ' ' and saved to Europe its Christian civiliza- 
tion. A greater than Tours is here ! In my humble 
judgment the vote of this House on the subject 
under consideration may bring to the people of the 
West and South, to the people of the United States, 
land to all mankind, weal or woe beyond the power 
x)f language to describe or imagination to conceive. 
In the princely palace and in the humblest ham- 
let ; by the financier and by the poorest toiler ; here, 
in Europe and everywhere, the proceedings of this 
Congress, upon this problem, wall be read and 
;,studied ; and as our actions bless or blight we shall 

(78) 



BIMETALISM 79 

be commended or condemned. The President of the 
United States, in the discharge of his duty as he 
sees it, has sent to Congress a message calling atten- 
tion to the present financial situation, and recom- 
mending the unconditional repeal of the Sherman 
law as the only means of securing immediate re- 
lief. Some outside of this hall have insisted that the 
President's recommendation imposes upon Demo- 
cratic members an obligation, as it were, to carry 
out his wishes, and over-zealous friends have even 
suggested that opposition to his views might subject 
the hardy dissenter to administrative displeasure* 
They do the President great injustice who pre- 
sume that he would forget for a moment the inde- 
pendence of the two branches of Congress. He 
would not be worthy of our admiration or even re- 
spect if he demanded a homage which would violate 
the primary principles of free representative gov- 
ernment. 

Let his own language rebuke those who would 
disregard their pledges to their own people in order 
to display a false fealty. In the message which he 
sent to Congress in December, 1885, he said, in 
words which may well be our guide in this great 
crisis: **The zealous watchfulness of our constitu- 
encies, great and small, supplements their suffrage, 
and before the tribunal they establish every pub- 
lic servant should be judged." Among the many 
grand truths exprest felicitously by the President 
during his public career none show a truer concep- 
tion of official duty or describe with more clearness 
the body from which the member receives his au- 
thority and to which he owes his responsibility. 



80 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Yes, ]\Ir. Speaker, it is before the tribunal estab- 
lished by our constituencies, and before that tribu- 
nal only that we must appear for judgment upon 
our actions here. When we each accepted a com- 
mission from 180,000 people we pledged ourselves 
to protect tlieir rights from invasion and to reflect 
their wishes to the best of our ability, and we must 
stand defenseless before the bar if our only excuse 
is ''he recommended it." And remember, sir, that 
these constituencies include not bankers, brokers, 
and boards of trade only, but embrace people in 
every station and condition of life; and in that 
great court from whose decision there is no appeal 
every voter has an equal voice. That the Demo- 
cratic party understands the duty of the Represent- 
ative, is evident from the fact that it found it neces- 
sary to nonconcur in a similar recommendation 
made by the President in 1885. 

In the message which he sent to the Forty-ninth 
Congress, at the beginning of the first session, we 
find these words : 

"Prosperity hesitates upon our threshold because the dan- 
gers and uncertainties surrounding this question. Capital 
timidly shrinks from trade, and investors are unwilling to 
take the chance of the questionable shape in which their 
money will be returned to them, while enterprise halts at a 
risk against which care and sagacious management do not 
protect. 

"As a necessary consequence, labor lacks employment, 
and suffering and distress are visited upon a portion ot' 
our fellow citizens especially entitled to the careful consid- 
eration of those charged with the duties of legislation. Xo 
interest appeals to us so strongly for a safe and stable 
currency as the vast army of the unemployed. I recom- 
mend the suspension of the compulsory coinage of silver 
dollars, directed by the law passed in February, 187S." 



BIMETALISM 81 

It will be seen that the same forces were at work 
then as now ; the same apprehension existed as now ; 
the same pressure was brought from the same 
sources in favor of the debasement of silver; but 
the members of Congress, refusing to take counsel 
of their fears, stood by the record of both great 
parties and by the Nation's history and retained 
the coinage of silver as then provided for. Let it 
be said to the credit of the Democratic party that 
in the House only 33 of its members voted to sus- 
pend the Bland law, while 130 are recorded against 
suspension. Time has proved that the members, 
reflecting the opinions of their people, were wiser 
than the Executive, and he is doubtless grateful to- 
day that they did not follow his suggestion. 

I have read with care the message sent to us last 
week, and have considered it in the light of every 
reasonable construction of which it is capable. If I 
am able to understand its language it points to the 
burial of silver, with no promise of resurrection. 
Its reasoning is in the direction of a single standard. 
It leads irresistibly to universal gold monometalism 
— to a realm over whose door is written : * ^ Abandon 
hope, all ye who enter here ! ' ' Before that door I 
stop, appalled. Have gentlemen considered the ef- 
fect of a single gold standard universally adopted ? 
Let us not deceive ourselves with the hope that we 
can discard silver for gold, and that other nations 
will take it up and keep it as a part of the world's 
. currency. When all the silver available for coinage 
could gain admission to some mints and all the gold 
available for coinage would find a place for mint- 
age, and some nation like France maintained the 



82 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

parity by means of bimetalism it was of compara- 
tively little importance whether a particular nation 
used silver, or gold, or both. 

Exchange did not fluctuate and trade could be 
carried on without inconvenience. But times have 
changed. One nation after another has closed its 
mints to silver until the white metal has, in Euro- 
pean countries, been made an outcast by legislation 
and has shown a bullion value different from its 
coinage value. India, at last, guided by the misrep- 
resentations of the metropolitan press, which pro- 
claimed as certain what was never probable, has 
suspended free coinage, fearing that this country 
would stop the purchase of silver. If the United 
States, the greatest silver-producing nation, which 
now utilizes more than one-third of the total annual 
product of the world, closes its mint to the coinage 
of silver, what assurance have we that it can retain 
its place as primary money in the commercial 
world ? 

Is it not more reasonable to suppose that a fur- 
ther fall in the bullion value of silver will be fol- 
lowed by a demand for a limitation of the legal 
tender qualities of the silver already in existence? 
That is already being urged by some. Is it not 
reasonable to suppose that our hostile action will 
lead to hostile action on the part of other nations? 
Every country must have monej^ for its people, and 
if silver is abandoned and gold substituted, it must 
be drawn from the world's already scanty supply. 

We hear much about a ''stable currency" and 
an ** honest dollar." It is a significant fact that 
those who have spoken in favor of unconditional 



BIMETALISM 83^ 

repeal have for the most part avoided a discussion 
of the effect of an appreciating standard. They 
take it for granted that a gold standard is not only 
an honest standard, but the only stable standard. I 
denounce that child of ignorance and avarice, the 
gold dollar under a universal gold standard, as the 
most dishonest dollar which we could employ. 

I stand upon the authority of every intelligent 
writer upon political economy when I assert that 
there is not and never has been an honest dollar. 
An honest dollar is a dollar absolutely stable in 
relation to all other things. Laughlin, in his work 
on Bimetalism, says: 

"Monometalists do not — as is often said — believe that golcf 
remains absolutely stable in value. Tbey hold that there is 
no such thing as a 'standard of value' for future payments 
in either gold or silver which remains absolutely invariable."' 

He even suggests a multiple standard for long- 
time contracts. I quote his words: 

"As regards National debts it is distinctly averred that 
neither gold nor silver forms a just measure of deferred 
payments, and that if justice in long contracts is sought 
for, we should not seek it by the doubtful and untried ex- 
pedient of international bimetalism, but by the clear and 
certain method of a multiple standard, a unit based upon the 
selling prices of a number of articles of general consumption. - 
A long-time contract would thereby be paid at its maturity \ 
by the same purchasing power as was given in the begin- 
ning." 

Jevons, one of the most generally accepted of the 
w^riters in favor of a gold standard, admits the in- 
stability of a single standard, and in language very 
similar to that above quoted suggests the multiple 
standard as the most equitable, if practicable. Chev- 
alier, who wrote a book in 1858 to show the injvis- 



84 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

tice of allowing a debtor to pay his debts in a cheap 
gold dollar, recognized the same fact, and said : 

"If the value of the metal declined, the creditor would 
suffer a loss upon the quantity he had received, if, on the 
contrary, it rose, the debtor would have to pay more thaa 
he calculated upon." 

I am on sound and scientific ground, therefore, 
when I say that a dollar approaches honesty as its 
purchasing power approaches stability. If I bor- 
row a thousand dollars to-day and next year pay 
the debt with a thousand dollars which will secure 
exactly as much of all things desirable as the one 
thousand which I borrowed, I have paid in honest 
dollars. If the money has increased or decreased in 
purchasing power, I have satisfied my debt with 
dishonest dollars. While the Government can say 
that a given weight of gold or silver shall constitute 
a dollar, and invest that dollar with legal-tender 
qualities, it cannot fix the purchasing power of the 
dollar. That must depend upon the law of supply 
and demand, and it may be well to suggest that this 
Government never tried to fix the exchangeable 
value of a dollar until it began to limit the number 
of dollars coined. 

If the number of dollars increases more rapidly 
than the need for dollars — as it did after the gold 
discoveries of 1849 — the exchangeable value of each 
dollar will fall and prices rise. If the demand for 
dollars increases faster than the number of dollars 
— as it did after 1800 — the price of each dollar will 
rise and prices generally will fall. The relative 
value of the dollar may be changed by natural 
causes or by legislation. An increased supply — the 



BIMETALISM 85 

demand remaining the same — or a decreased de- 
mand — the supply remaining the same — will reduce 
the exchangeable value of each dollar. Natural 
causes may act on both supply and demand ; as, for 
instance, by increasing the product from the mines 
or by increasing the amount consumed in the arts. 
Legislation acts directly on the demand, and thus 
affects the price, since the demand is one of the 
factors in fixing the price. 

If by legislative action the demand for silver is 
destroyed and the demand for gold is increased by 
making it the only standard, the exchangeable value 
of each unit of that standard, or dollar, as we call 
it, will be increased. If the exchangeable value of 
the dollar is increased by legislation the debt of the 
debtor is increased, to his injury and to the ad- 
vantage of the creditor. And let me suggest here, 
in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
McCall], who said that the money loaner was en- 
titled to the advantages derived from improved ma- 
chinery and inventive genius, that he is mistaken. 
The laboring man and the producer are entitled to 
these benefits, and the money loaner, by every law 
of justice, ought to be content with a dollar equal 
in purchasing power to the dollar which he loaned, 
and any one desiring more than that desires a dis- 
honest dollar, it matters not what name he may 
give it. Take an illustration: John Doe, of Ne- 
braska, has a farm worth $2,000 and mortgages it 
to Richard Roe, of Massachusetts, for $1,000. Sup- 
pose the value of the monetary unit is increased by 
legislation which creates a greater demand for gold. 
The debt is increased. If the increase amounts to 



86 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

100 per cent, the Nebraska farmer finds that the 
prices of his products have fallen one-half and his 
land loses one-half its value, unless the price is 
maintained by the increased population incident to 
a new country. 

The mortgage remains nominally the same, tho 
the debt has actually become twice as great. Will 
he be deceived by the cry of ''honest dollar"? If 
he should loan a Nebraska neighbor a hog weighing 
100 pounds and the next spring demand in return 
a hog weighing 200 pounds he would be called dis- 
honest, even tho he contended that he was only de- 
manding one hog — just the number he loaned. So- 
ciety has become accustomed to some very nice dis- 
tinctions. The poor man is called a socialist if he 
believes that the wealth of the rich should be di- 
vided among the poor, but the rich man is called a 
financier if he devises a plan by which the pittance 
of the poor can be converted to his use. 

The poor man who takes property by force is 
called a thief, but the creditor who can by legisla- 
tion make a debtor pay a dollar twice as large as 
he borrowed is lauded as the friend of a sound cur- 
rency. The man who wants the people to destroy 
the Government is an anarchist, but the man who 
wants the Government to destroy the people is 
called a patriot. 

The great desire now seems to be to restore confi- 
dence, and some have an idea that the only way to 
restore confidence is to coax the money loaner to 
let go of his hoard by making the profits too tempt- 
ing to be resisted. Capital is represented as a shy 
and timid maiden who must be courted, if won. 



BIMETALTSM 87 

Let me suggest a plan for bringing money from 
Europe. If it be possible, let us enact a law, 
* ' Whereas confidence must be restored ; and whereas 
money will always come from its hiding place if the 
inducement is sufficient: Therefore, be it enacted, 
That every man who borrows $1 shall pay back $2 
and interest (the usury law not to be enforced)." 

Would not English capital come * ' on the swiftest 
ocean greyhounds ' ' ? The money loaner of London 
would say: ''I will not loan in India or Egypt or 
in South America. The inhabitants of those coun- 
tries are a wicked and ungodly people and refuse 
to pay more than they borrowed. I will loan in. 
the United States, for there lives an honest people, 
who delight in a sound currency and pay in an hon- 
est dollar." Why does not some one propose that 
plan? Because no one would dare to increase by 
law the number of dollars which the debtor must 
pay, and yet by some it is called wise statesmanship 
to do indirecth' and in the dark what no man has 
the temerity to propose directly and openly. 

We have been called cranks and lunatics and 
idiots because we have warned our fellow men 
against the inevitable and intolerable consequences 
which would follow the adoption of a gold standard 
by all the world. But who, I ask, can be silent in 
the presence of such impending calamities? The 
XJnited States, England, France, and Germany own 
to-day about $2,600,000,000 of the world's supply 
of gold coin, or about five-sevenths of the total 
amount, and yet these four nations contain but a 
small fraction of the inhabitants of the globe. What 
will be the exchangeable value of a gold dollar when 



88 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Indians people, outnumbering alone tlie inhabitants 
of the four great nations named, reach out after 
their share of gold coin? What will be the final 
price of gold when all the nations of the Occident 
and Orient join in the scramble ? 

A distinguished advocate of the gold standard 
said recently, in substance: "AVheat has now 
reached a point where the English can afford to 
buy it, and gold will soon return to relieve our 
financial embarrassment." How delighted the 
farmer will be when he realizes what an opportunity 
he has to save his country! A nation in distress; 
banks failing; mines closed; laborers unemployed; 
enterprise at a standstill, and behold, the farmer, 
bowed with unceasing, even if unremunerative, toil, 
steps forth to save his country — by selling his wheat 
below the cost of production ! And I am afraid he 
will even now be censured for allowing the panic 
to go as far as it has before reducing his price. 

It seems cruel that upon the growers of wheat 
and cotton, our staple exports, should be placed the 
burden of supplying us, at whatever cost, with the 
necessary gold, and yet the financier quoted has 
suggested the only means, except the issue of bonds, 
by which our stock of gold can be replenished. If 
it is difficult now to secure gold, what will be the 
condition when the demand is increased by its adop- 
tion as the world 's only primary money ? We would 
simply put gold upon an auction block, with every 
nation as a bidder, and each ounce of the standard 
metal would be knocked down to the one offering 
the most of all other kinds of property. Every dis- 
turbance of finance in one country would communi- 



BIMETALISM 89 

cate itself to every other, and in the misery which 
would follow it would be of little consolation to 
know that others were suffering as much as, or more 
than, we. 

I have only spoken of the immediate effects of the 
substitution of gold as the world's only money of 
ultimate redemption. The worst remains to be 
told. If, as in the resumption of specie payments 
in 1879, we could look forward to a time when the 
contraction would cease, the debtor might become 
a tenant upon his former estate and the home-owner 
assume the role of the homeless with the sweet as- 
surance that his children or his children's children 
might live to enjoy the blessings of a "stable cur- 
rency." But, sir, the hapless and hopeless pro- 
ducer of wealth goes forth into a night illuminated 
by no star; he embarks upon a sea whose farther 
shore no mariner may find ; he travels in a desert 
where the ever-retreating mirage makes his disap- 
pointment a thousandfold more keen. Let the world 
once commit its fortunes to the use of gold alone 
and it must depend upon the annual increase of 
that metal to keep pace with the need for money. 

The Director of the Mint gives about $130,000,- 
000 as the world's production last year. Something 
like one-third is produced in connection with silver, 
and must be lost if silver mining is rendered un- 
productive. It is estimated that nearly two-thirds 
of the annual product is used in the arts, and the 
amount so used is increasing. Where, then, is the 
supply to meet the increasing demands of an in- 
creasing population ? Is there some new California 
or some undiscovered Australia yet to be explored ? 

I 10 



90 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Is it not probable that the supply available for 
coinage will diminish rather than increase? Jacobs, 
in his work on the Precious Metals, has calculated 
the appreciation of the monetary unit. He has 
shown that the almost imperceptible increase of 2 
per cent, per year will amount to a total apprecia- 
tion of 500 per cent, in a century. Or, to illustrate, 
that cotton at 10 cents to-day and w^heat at 60 cents 
w^ould mean cotton at 2 cents and wheat at 12 cents 
in one hundred years. A national, State or muni- 
cipal debt renewed from time to time would, at the 
end of that period, be six times as great as when 
contracted, altho several times the amount would 
have been paid in interest. 

When one realizes the full significance of a con- 
stantly appreciating standard he can easily agree 
with Alison that the Dark Ages resulted from a 
failure of the money supply. How can any one 
view with unconcern the attempt to turn back the 
tide of civilization by the complete debasement of 
one-half of the world's money! When I point to 
the distress which, not suddenly, but gradually, is 
entering the habitations of our people ; when I refer 
you to the census as conclusive evidence of the un- 
equal distribution of wealth and of increasing ten- 
ancy among our people, of whom, in our cities, less 
than one-fourth now own their homes ; when I sug- 
gest the possibility of this condition continuing 
until, passed from a land of independent owners, 
we become a nation of landlords and tenants, you 
must tremble for civil liberty itself. 

Free government cannot long survive when the 
thousands enjoy the wealth of the country and the 



BI]\IETALISM 91 

millions share its poverty in common. Even now 
you hear among the rich an occasionally exprest 
contempt for popular government, and among the 
poor a protest against legislation which makes them 
"toil that others may reap." I appeal to you to 
restore justice and bring back prosperity while yet 
a peaceable solution can be secured. We mourn the 
lot of unhappy Ireland, whose alien owners drain 
it of its home-created wealth ; but we may reach a 
condition, if present tendencies continue, when her 
position at this time will be an object of envy, and 
some poet may write of our cities as Goldsmith did 
of the ' * Deserted Village " : 

While scourged by famine from a smiling land, 
The mournful peasant leads his humble band, 
And, while he sinks without one hand to save, 
The country blooms — a garden and a grave. 

But, lest I may be accused of reasonless complain- 
ing, let me call unimpeachable witnesses who will 
testify to the truth of my premises and to the cor- 
rectness of my conclusions. 

Jevons says: 

"If all nations of the globe were suddenly and simul- 
taneouslj' to demonetize silver and require gold money a 
revolution in the value of gold would be inevitable." 

Giffin, who is probably the most fanatical ad- 
herent of the gold standard, says, in his book en- 
titled "The Case Against Bimetalism": 

"The primary offender in the matter, perhaps, was Ger- 
many, which made a mistake, as I believe, in substituting 
gold for silver as the standard money of the country. . . . 
To some extent also Italy has been an offender in this mat- 
ter, the resumption of specie payments in that country on a 
gold basis being entirely a work of superfluity ; the resump- 
tion on a silver basis would have been preferable. . . . No 



92 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

doubt the pressure on gold would hare been more severe 
than it has been if the United States had not passed the 
Bland coinage law." 

The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Rayner] 
said in the opening speech of this debate : ' ' In my 
opinion there is not a sufficient amount of gold in 
existence to supply the demands of commerce and 
the necessities of the world's circulation." 

Mr. Balfour, member of Parliament, in a speech 
recently delivered, said: "Let Germany, India, 
and the United States try a gold currency and a 
tremor seizes every one of our commercial magnates. 
They look forward, in the immediate future, to 
catastrophe, and feel that the ultimate result may 
be a slow appreciation of the standard of value, 
which is perhaps the most deadening and benumb- 
ing influence that can touch the enterprise of a 
nation. ' ' 

Mr. Goschen, delegate from Great Britain, said at 
the International Monetary Conference in 1878 : 

"If, however, other States were to carry on a propa- 
ganda in favor of a gold standard and the demonetization 
of silver, the Indian government w^ould be obliged to recon- 
sider its position and might be forced by events to take 
measures similar to those taken elsewhere. In that case 
the scramble to get rid of silver might provoke one of the 
gravest crises ever undergone by commerce. One or two 
States might demonetize silver without serious results, but 
if all demonetize there would be no buyers ; and silver would 
fall in alarming proportions. ... If all States should re- 
solve on the adoption of a gold standard, the question arose, 
would there be sufficient gold for the purpose without a tre- 
mendous crisis? There would be a fear on the one hand 
of a depreciation of silver, and one on the other of a rise in 
the value of gold, and a corresponding fall in the prices of 
all commodities. 

"Italy, Russia, and Austria, whenever they resume specie 
payments, would require metal, and if all other States went 



BIMETALISM 93 

in the direction of a gold standard, these countries too would 
be forced to take gold. Resumption on their part would be 
facilitated by the maintenance of silver as a part of the 
legal tender of the world. The American proposal for a 
universal double standard seemed impossible of realization, 
a veritable Utopia ; but the theory of a universal gold stand- 
ard was Utopian, and indeed involved a false Utopia. It 
was better for the world at large that the two metals should 
continue in circulation than that one should be uni- 
versally substituted for the other." 

Thus does an eminent English monometalist de- 
nounce the idea of a universal gold standard and 
foretell its consequences. But we are not depend- 
ent for authority upon foreign advocates of a single 
standard. Read the words of him who for many 
years was the guiding genius of the Republican 
party, Hon. James Gr. Blaine, and say whether he 
was a lunatic because he described in emphatic 
words the dangers attendant upon universal mono- 
metalism. He said upon the floor of the House, 
February 7, 1878 : 

"On the much-vexed and long-mooted question as to a 
bimetalic or monometalic standard, my own views are suffi- 
ciently indicated in the remarks I have made. I believe 
the struggle now going on in this country and in other 
countries for a single gold standard would, if successful, 
produce widespread disaster in and throughout the commer- 
cial world. 

"The destruction of silver as money and establishing gold 
as the sole unit of value must have a ruinous effect on all 
forms of property except those investments which yield a 
fixed return in money. These would be enormously en- 
hanced in value, and would gain a disproportionate and un- 
fair advantage over every other species of property. If, as 
the most reliable statistics affirm, there are nearly $7,000,- 
000,000 of coin or bullion in the world, not very unequally 
divided between gold and silver, it is impossible to strike 
silver out of existence as money without results which will 
prove distressing to millions and utterly disastrous to tens 
of thousands." 



94 BUYAN'S SPEECHES 

Again, he said: 

"I believe gold and silver coin to be the money of the 
Constitution ; indeed, the money of the American people, an- 
terior to the Constitution which the great organic law recog- 
nized as quite independent of its own existence. No power 
was conferred on Congress to declare either metal should 
not be money. Congress has, therefore, in my judgment, no 
power to demonetize silver any more than to demonetize 
gold." 

Senator Sherman said, in 1869 : 

"The contraction of the currency is a far more distressing 
operation than Senators suppose. Our own and other na- 
tions have gone through that operation before. It is not 
possible to take that voyage without the sorest distress. To 
every person except a capitalist out of debt, or a salaried 
oflBcer or annuitant, it is a period of loss, danger, lassitude 
of trade, fall of wages, suspension of enterprise, bankruptcy, 
and disaster. It means ruin of all dealers whose debts are 
twice their business capital, though one-third less than their 
actual property. It means the fall of all agricultural pro- 
duction without any great reduction of taxes. What pru- 
dent man would dare to build a house, a railroad, a factory, 
or a barn with this certain fact before him?" 

Let me quote from an apostle of the Democratic 
faith, whose distinguished services in behalf of his 
party and his country have won for him the esteem 
of all. Mr. Carlisle, then a member of the House 
of Representatives, said, February 21, 1878 : 

"I know that the world's stock of precious metals is none 
too large, and I see no reason to apprehend that it will ever 
be so. Mankind will be fortunate indeed if the annual pro- 
duction of gold and silver coin shall keep pace with the 
annual increase of population, and industry. According to 
my views of the subject the conspiracy which seems to have 
been formed here and in Europe to destroy by legislation 
and otherwise from three-sevenths to one-half the metalic 
money of the world is tlip most gigantic crime of this or any 
other age. Tlie consummation of such a scheme would ulti- 
mately entail more misery upon the human race than all 



BIMETALISM 95- 

the wars, pestilences, and famines that ever occurred in the 
history of the world. 

"The absolute and instantaneous destruction of half the 
entire movable property of the world, including houses, ships, 
railroads, and other appliances for carrying on commerce, 
while it would be felt more sensibly at the moment, would 
not produce anything like the prolonged distress and dis- 
organization of society that must* inevitably result from the 
permanent annihilation of one-half the metalic money of 
the world." 

The junior Senator from Texas [Mr. Mills] 
never did the party greater service than when, on 
the 3d of February, 1886, on this floor he de- 
nounced, in language, the force and earnestness of 
which cannot be surpassed, the attempted crime 
against silver. Let his words be an inspiration 
now : 

"But in all the wild, reckless, and remorseless brutalities 
that have marked the footprints of resistless power there is 
some extenuating circumstance that mitigates the severity of 
the punishment due to crime. Some have been the product 
of the fierce passions of war, some have come from the 
antipathy that separates alien races, some from the super- 
stitions of opposing religions. 

"But the crime that is now sought to be perpetrated on 
more than fifty millions of people comes neither from the 
camp of a conqueror, the hand of a foreigner, nor the altar 
of an idolator. But it comes from those in whose veins runs 
the blood of the common ancestry, who were bom under the 
same skies, speak the same language, reared in the same 
institutions, and nurtured in the principles of the same 
religious faith. It comes from the cold phlegmatic marble 
heart of avarice — avarice that seeks to paralyze labor, in- 
crease the burden of debt, and fill the land with desti- 
tution and suffering, to gratify the lust for gold — avarice 
surrounded by every comfort that wealth can command, and 
rich enough to satisfy every want save that which refuses 
to be satisfied without the suffocation and strangulation of 
all the labor of the land. With a forehead that refuses to 
be ashamed it demands of Congress an act tJiat will par- 
alyze all the forces of production, shut out labor from all 



96 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

employment, increase the burden of debts and taxation, and 
send desolation and suffering to all the homes of the poor." 

Can language be stronger or conclusion more con- 
clusive? What expression can be more forcible 
than the ' ' most gigantic crime of this or any other 
age ' ' ? What picture more vivid than that painted 
in the words, ' ' The consummation of such a scheme 
would ultimately entail more misery upon the hu- 
man race than all the wars, pestilences, and famines 
that ever occurred in the history of the world"? 
What more scathing rebuke could be administered 
to avarice than that contained in the words of ^Ir. 
Mills? 

It is from the awful horrors described by these 
distinguished men, differing in politics, but united 
in sentiment, that I beg you, sirs, to save your fel- 
low men. 

On the base of the monument erected by a grate- 
ful people to the memory of the late Senator Hill, 
of Georgia, are inscribed these Avords : 

"Who saves his country saves himself, and all things 
saved do bless him. Who lets his country die lets all things 
die, dies himself ignobly, and all things dying, curse him." 

If, sirs, in saving your country you save your- 
selves and earn the benedictions of all things saved, 
how much greater will be your reward if your ef- 
forts save not your country only but all mankind ! 
If he who lets his country die, brings upon himself 
the curses of all things dying; in what language 
will an indignant people express their execration, if 
your action lead to the enslavement of the great ma- 
jority of the people by the universal adoption of an 
appreciating standard! 



BIMETALISM 97 

Let me call your attention briefly to the advan- 
tages of bimetalism. It is not claimed that by the 
use of two metals at a fixed ratio absolute stability 
can be secured. We only contend that thus the 
monetary unit will become more stable in relation 
to other property than under a single standard. 
If a single standard were really more desirable than 
a double standard, we are not free to choose gold, 
and would be compelled to select silver. Gold and 
silver must remain component parts of the metalic 
money of the world — that must be accepted as an 
indisputable fact. Our abandonment of silver 
would in all probability drive it out of use as pri- 
mary money; and silver as a promise to pay gold 
is little, if any, better than a paper promise to pay. 
If bimetalism is impossible, then we must make up 
our minds to a silver standard or to the abandon- 
ment of both gold and silver. 

Let us suppose the worst that has been prophe- 
sied by our opponents, namely, that we would be 
upon a silver standard if we attempted the free 
coinage of both gold and silver at any ratio. Let 
us suppose that all our gold goes to Europe and 
we have only silver. Silver would not be incon- 
venient to use, because a silver certificate is just 
as convenient to handle as a gold certificate, and 
the silver itself need not be handled except where 
it is necessary for change. Gold is not handled 
among the people. No one desires to accept any 
large amount in gold. The fact that the Treasury 
has always on hand a large amount of gold coin de- 
posited in exchange for gold certificates shows that 
the paper representative is more desirable than the 



98 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

metal itself. If, following out the supposition, our 
gold goes abroad, Europe will have more money 
with which to buy our exports — cotton and wheat, 
cattle and hogs. 

If, on the other hand, we adopt gold, we must 
draw it from Europe, and thus lessen their money 
and reduce the price of our exports in foreign mar- 
kets. This, too, would decrease the total value of 
our exports and increase the amount of products 
which it would be necessary to send abroad to pay 
the principal and interest which we owe to bond- 
holders and stockholders residing in Europe. Some 
have suggested the advisability of issuing gold 
^bonds in order to maintain a gold standard. Let 
them remember that those bonds sold in this coun- 
try will draw money from circulation and increase 
the stringency, and sold abroad will affect injuri- 
ously the price of our products abroad, thus mak- 
ing a double tax upon the toilers of the United 
States, who must ultimately pay them. 

Let them remember, too, that gold bonds held 
abroad must some time be paid in gold, and the 
exportation of that gold would probably raise a 
clamor for an extension of time in order to save 
this country from another stringency. A silver 
standard, too, would make us the trading center of 
all the silver-using countries of the world, and these 
countries contain far more than one-half of the 
world's population. What an impetus would be 
given to our Western and Southern seaports, such 
;as San Francisco, Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, 
Savannah, and Charleston. Then, again, we pro- 



BIMETALISM 99 

duce our silver, and produce it in quantities which 
would to some extent satisfy our monetary needs. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

On motion of Mr. Hunter the time of Mr. Bryan 
was extended indefinitely. 

^Ir. Bryan. I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
and the House. 

Our annual product of gold is less than 50 cents 
per capita. Deduct from this sum the loss which 
would be occasioned to the gold supply by the clos- 
ing of our silver mines, which produce gold in con- 
junction with silver; deduct, also, the amount con- 
sumed in the arts, and the amount left for coinage 
is really inconsiderable. Thus, with a gold standard, 
we would be left dependent upon foreign powers 
for our annual money supply. They say we must 
adopt a gold standard in order to trade with 
Europe. Why not reverse the proposition and say 
that Europe must resume the use of silver in order 
to trade with us? But why adopt either gold or 
silver alone? Why not adopt both and trade with 
both gold-using and silver-using countries? The 
principle of bimetalism is established upon a scien- 
tific basis. 

The Government does not try to fix the purchas- 
ing power of the dollar, either gold or silver. It 
simply says, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, 
* ' The money unit shall stand upon the two metals, ' ^ 
and then allows the exchangeable value of that unit 
to rise or fall according as the total product of both 
metals decreases or increases in proportion to the 
demand for money. In attempting to maintain the 
parity between the two metals at a fixed ratio, the 



100 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Government does not undertake the impossible. 
France for several years did maintain the parity 
approximately at 15;^ to 1 by offering unlimited 
coinage to both metals at that ratio. It is very com- 
mon for some people to urge, ''You cannot put 
value into anything by law, ' ' and I am sorry to see 
some proclaim this who know by rich experience 
how easy it is for the Government to legislate prices 
up or down. 

We were called together to relieve financial dis- 
tress by legislation. Some propose to relieve the 
present stringency in the money market by remov- 
ing the tax on national bank circulation and allow- 
ing banks to issue 100 per cent, on their bonds in- 
stead of 90 per cent. This legislation would put 
value into bank stocks by law, because it would add 
to the profits of the bank, and such a law would 
probably raise the market price of bonds by increas- 
ing the demand for them. I will not discuss the 
merits of this proposition now. Let those who favor 
it prepare to justify themselves before their con- 
stituents. The New York World of August 3 con- 
tained an article encouraging the banks to issue 
more money under the present law. It showed the 
profits as follows: 

"These bonds are selling now at 109 to 110. At this latter 
period a $100,000 bond transaction would stand as follows : 
$100,000 U. S. 4's at 110, less 1-3 per cent, accrued 

interest. $109,666 net, would cost $109,666 

Less circulation issued on this amount 90,000 



Making the actual cash investment only ... $ 19.666 

On which the bank would receive an income of over 127^ 
per cent, as follows : 



BIMETALISM 101 

Interest on $100,000 4's per annum $4,000 

Less tax 1 per cent, on circulation $900 

Less sinking fund to retire premium to be 

improved at 6 per cent 464 

Less expenses ^ 100 

1,464 

Net income $2,5366 

Already a good portion of these bonds held in reserve are 
coming into the market and soon find their way into the 
hands of national banks. 

If the proposed law is adopted $900 will be taken 
from the expense column by the repeal of the tax 
on circulation and $10,000 will be taken from the 
cost of investment, so that the profits would amount 
to $3,436 on an investment of $9,666, or more than 
33 per cent. If, however, the increased demand for 
bonds raised the premium to 15 per cent., we could 
only calculate a little less than $3,436 on an invest- 
ment of $14,666, or nearly 25 per cent. This they 
would probably call a fair divide. The bondholder 
would receive an advantage in the increased pre- 
mium of, say, $25,000,000, and the national bank 
would be able to make about double on its invest- 
ment what it does now. If the premium should 
increase more than 5 per cent, the bondholder 
would make more and the bank less. If the pre- 
mium should not increase that much the bondholder 
would make less and the bank more. 

Let those, I repeat, who favor this plan, be pre- 
pared to defend it before a constituency composed 
of people who are not making 5 per cent, on an 
average on the money invested in farms or enter- 
prises, and let those who will profit by the law cease 
to deny the ability of Government to increase the 
price of property by law. One is almost moved to 



102 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

tears by the sight of New England manufacturers 
protesting with indignation against the wisdom or 
possibility of giving fictitious value to a product, 
when for the last thirty years they have drained 
the rest of the country and secured artificial prices 
by protective tariff laws. Some of our Eastern 
friends accuse the advocates of free coinage of fa- 
voring repudiation. 

Repudiation has not been practised much in re- 
cent years by the debtor, but in 1869 the Credit 
Strengthening Act enabled the bondholder to repu- 
diate a contract made with the Government and to 
demand coin in payment of a bond for which he 
had given paper and which was payable in lawful 
money. That act increasing the market value of 
the bonds gave a profit to many who now join the 
beneficiaries of the act assuming the District of 
Columbia debt in vociferous proclamation that ' ' the 
Government cannot create value." Does not the 
location of a public building add to the value of 
adjacent real estate? Do not towns contest the lo- 
cation of a county seat because of the advantage it 
brings? Does not the use of gold and silver as 
money increase the value of each ounce of each 
metal ? 

These are called precious metals because the pro- 
duction is limited and cannot be increased indef- 
initely at will. If this Government or a number of 
governments can offer a market unlimited, as com- 
pared with the supply, the bullion value of gold 
and silver can be maintained at the legal ratio. The 
moment one metal tends to cheapen, the use lall;^ 
on it and increases its price, while the decreased 



\ 



BIMETALISM 103 

demand for the dearer metal retards its rise and 
thus the bullion values are kept near to their legal 
ratio, so near that the variation can cause far less 
inconvenience and injustice than the variation in 
the exchangeable value of the unit would inflict 
under a single standard. The option is always given 
to the debtor in a double standard. 

In fact, the system could not exist if the option 
remained with the creditor, for he would demand 
the dearer metal and thus increase any fluctuation 
in bullion values, while the option in the hands of 
the debtor reduces the fluctuation to a minimum. 
That the unit under a double standard is more 
stable in its relation to all other things is admitted 
by Jevons and proven by several illustrations. Mr. 
Giffen tries to avoid the force of the admission by 
saying that the difference in favor of the double 
standard is only in the proportion of 2 to 1, and 
therefore not sufficient to justify its adoption. It 
would seem that where stability is so important — 
and it never was so important as to-day, when so 
many long-time contracts are executed — even a 
slight difference in favor of the double standard 
ought to make it acceptable. 

We established a bimetalic standard in 1792, but 
silver, being overvalued by our ratio of 15 to 1, 
stayed with us and gold went abroad, where mint 
ratios were more favorable. 

I have here a silver coin [exhibiting it] which 
came from the mint in 1795. It has upon the edge 
these significant words: "Hundred Cents — One 
Dollar or Unit. ' ' It would seem, therefore, that the 
weight of the gold dollar was regulated by the 



104 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

silver dollar, and the gold pieces provided for made 
multiples of it. In 1834 and in 1837 the alloy was 
changed and the gold dollar reduced in size in 
order to correspond to the newly established ratio 
of 16 to 1. The amount of pure silver in the stand- 
ard dollar has never been changed since its adop- 
tion in 1792. 

The ratio of 16 to 1 overvalued gold and our 
silver went abroad. The silver dollar was worth 
about 3 cents more than the gold dollar, because 
it could be coined in France at the ratio of 15^^ to 1. 
Thus during all the period prior to 1873 this coun- 
try enjoyed bimetalism and, altho at one time we 
used one metal and at another time another, no 
statesman arose to demand a single standard. We 
now have three kinds of bimetalists — those who 
favor a double standard only by international 
agreement, those who favor independent action at 
a changed ratio, and those who favor independent 
action at the present ratio. Those favoring an in- 
ternational agreement might be again divided into 
those who favor an agreement by a few nations, 
those who favor an agreement by many nations, and 
those who favor it only on condition that all nations 
would join. 

I suppose it would hardly be proper to further 
divide them into those who really desire an inter- 
national agreement and those who utilize the possi- 
bility of an international agreement to prevent in- 
dependent action. I am afraid the agreement w411 
not be brought about by those who, like the gentle- 
man from Ohio [Mr. Harter], are willing to try it, 
but have no faith in its permanency; nor will it 



BIMETALISM 105 

receive miicli aid, I fear, from the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Hendrix], who said on last Sat- 
urday : 

"I predict to you that inside of three months — before this 
Congress meets again — if you repeal this Sherman law and 
adjourn, England will make proposals to this country to 
come into a monetary conference and see what can be done 
for the sake of her ward India." 

Less than five minutes before he had pierced the 
veil of the future with prophetic ken and declared : 

"The moving finger of Time, down from the days when 
gold started in the race for first place to this moment, has 
pointed to a single unit of value. It is our destiny. It will 
triumph in this Hall — perhaps not in this Congress nor in 
your day ; but it is going to become the financial policy of 
this country just as sure as to-morrow morning's sun will 
rise." 

Any hope of bimetalism there ? 

What is the prospect for the establishment of in- 
ternational bimetalism ? I would be glad to see the 
unlimited coinage of gold and silver at a fixt ratio 
among the nations^ but how is such an agreement to 
be secured? The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Rayner] says the unconditional repeal of the Sher- 
man law will bring England to terms. Is it impos- 
sible to extract a lion's teeth without putting your 
head in his mouth? Is it not a dangerous experi- 
ment to join England in a single standard in order 
to induce her to join us in a double standard ? In- 
ternational agreement is an old delusion and has 
done important duty on many previous occasions. 

The opponents of the Bland law in 1878 were 
waiting for international bimetalism. Mr. Cleve- 
land mentioned the prospect of it in his message in 
1885, and again this year. It was a valuable weapon 

1 11 



106 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

in 1890, when the Sherman bill was passed and the 
Brussels conference was called in time to carry us 
over the last Presidential election. We are still 
waiting, and those who are waiting most patiently 
who favor a gold standard. Are we any nearer to 
an international agreement than we were fifteen 
years ago? The European nations wait on Eng- 
land, and she refused within a year to even con- 
sider the adoption of the double standard. Can we 
conquer her by waiting ? We have tried the Fabian 
policy. 

Suppose we try bringing her to terms by action. 
Let me appeal to your patriotism. Shall we make 
our laws dependent upon England 's action and thus 
allow her to legislate for us upon the most impor- 
tant of all questions ? Shall we confess our inability 
to enact monetary laws? Are we an English col- 
ony or an independent people? If the use of gold 
alone is to make us slaves, let us use both metals 
and be free. If there be some living along the 
Eastern coast — better acquainted with the beauties 
of the Alps than with the grandeur of the Rockies, 
more accustomed to the sunny skies of Italy than 
to the invigorating breezes of the Mississippi Valley 
— who are not willing to trust their fortunes and 
their destinies to American citizens, let them learn 
that the people living between the Alleghanies to 
the Golden Gate are not afraid to cast their all upon 
the Republic and rise or fall with it. 

One hundred and seventeen years ago the liberty 
bell gave notice to a waiting and expectant people 
that independence had been declared. There may 
be doubting, trembling ones among us now, but, sirs, 



BIMETALISM 107 

I do not overestimate it when I say that out of 
twelve millions of voters, more than ten millions are 
waiting, anxiously waiting, for the signal which 
shall announce the financial independence of the 
United States. [Applause.] This Congress cannot 
more surely win the approval of a grateful people 
than by declaring that this nation, the grandest 
which the world has ever seen, has the right and 
the ability to legislate for its own people on every 
subject, regardless of the wishes, the entreaties, or 
the threats of foreign powers. [Applause.] 

Perhaps the most important question for us to 
consider is the question of ratio. Comparatively 
few people in this country are in favor of a gold 
standard, and no national party has ever advocated 
it. Comparatively few, also, will be deceived by 
the promise of international bimetalism annually 
held out to us. Among those in favor of bimetalism, 
and in favor of independent action on the part of 
the United States, there is, however, an honest dif- 
ference of opinion as to the particular ratio at which 
the unlimited coinage of gold and silver should be 
undertaken. The principle of bimetalism does not 
stand upon any certain ratio, and may exist at 1 to 
30 as well as at 1 to 16. 

In fixing the ratio we should select that one 
W'hich will secure the greatest advantage to the 
public and cause the least injustice. The present 
ratio, in my judgment, should be adopted. A 
change in the ratio could be made (as in 1834) by 
reducing the size of the gold dollar or by increasing 
the size of the silver dollar, or by making a change 
in the weight of both dollars. A larger silver dollar 



108 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

would help the creditor. A smaller gold dollar 
would help the debtor. It is not just to do either, 
but if a change must be made the benefit should 
be given to the debtor rather than to the creditor. 

Let no one accuse me of defending the justness 
of any change; but I repeat it, if we are given a 
choice between a change which will aid the debtor 
by reducing the size of his debt and a change which 
will aid the creditor by increasing the amount 
which he is to receive, either by increasing the num- 
ber of his dollars or their size, the advantage must 
be given to the debtor, and no man during this de- 
bate, whatever may be his private wish or interest, 
will advocate the giving of the advantage to the 
creditor. 

To illustrate the effect of changing the ratio let 
us take, for convenience, the ratio of 24 to 1, as 
advocated by some. We could make this change by 
reducing the weight of the gold dollar one-third. 
This would give to the holders of gold an advantage 
of some $200,000,000, but the creditors would lose 
several billions of dollars in the actual value of their 
debts. A debt contracted before 1873 would not 
be scaled, because the new gold dollar would pur- 
chase as much as the old gold dollar would in 1873. 
Creditors, however, whose loans have been made 
since that time would suffer, and the most recent 
loans would show the greatest loss. The value of 
silver bullion has only fallen in relation to gold. 
But the purchasing power of one ounce of silver 
has varied less since 1873 than has the purchasing 
power of one ounce of gold, which would indicate 
that gold had risen. 



BIMETALISM 109 

If, on the other hand, the ratio is changed by in- 
creasing the size of the silver dollar, it would be 
necessary to recoin our silver dollars into dollars 
a half larger, or we would have in circulation two 
legal tender silver dollars of different sizes. Of the 
two plans it would be better, in my judgment, to 
keep both dollars in circulation together, tho un- 
equal in weight, rather than to recoin the lighter 
dollars. The recoinage of more than 500,000,000 
dollars, or the bullion representing them, would 
cause a shrinkage of about $170,000,000 or one-third 
of our silver money ; it would cause a shrinkage of 
nearly one-sixth of our metalic money and of more 
than one-tenth of our total circulation. This con- 
traction would increase our debts more than a bil- 
lion dollars and decrease the nominal value of our 
property more than five billions. 

A change in the ratio made by increasing the 
size of the silver dollar as above suggested would 
also decrease by one-third the number of dollars 
which could be coined from the annual product of 
silver. If, as Mr. Carlisle has said, the supply of 
metal, both gold and silver, is none too large to 
keep pace with population, the increase in the 
weight of each dollar would make the supply to 
that extent deficient. A change in ratio, whether 
secured by decreasing the gold dollar or by in- 
creasing the silver dollar, would probably make an 
international agreement more difficult, because 
nearly all of the silver coin now in existence circu- 
lates at a ratio less than ours. 

If the change should be made in this country by 
increasing the size of the sih^er dollar and an inter- 



110 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

national agreement secured upon the new ratio, to 
be effected by other nations in the same way, the 
amount of money in the world, that is metalic 
money, would suffer a contraction of more than 
$1,000,000,000, to the enormous injury of the debtor 
class and to the enormous advantage of the creditor 
class. If we believe that the value of gold has risen 
because its supply has not increased as fast as the 
demand caused by favorable legislation, then it 
would be unfair to continue this appreciation by 
other legislation favorable to gold. It would be a 
special injustice to the mine owner and to the 
farmer, whose products have fallen with silver, to 
make perpetual the injunction against their pros- 
perity. 

We often Jiear our opponents complain of the 
*' cupidity of the mine owner." Let us admit that 
the mine owner is selfish, and that he will profit by 
the increased price of silver bullion. Let us, for the 
sake of argument, go further, and accuse him of 
favoring the free coinage of silver solely for the 
purpose of increasing the price of his product. 
Does that make him worse than other men ? Is not 
the farmer selfish enough to desire a higher price 
for wheat ? Is not the cotton grower selfish enough 
to desire a higher price for his cotton? Is not the 
laboring man selfish enough to desire higher wages? 
And, if I may be pardoned for the boldness, are not 
bankers and business men selfish enough to ask for 
legislation at our hands which will give them pros- 
perity? Was not this extraordinary session called 
in order to bring back prosperity to our business 
men? 



BIMETALISM 111 

Is it any more important that you should keep 
a mercantile house from failing than that you 
should keep a mine from suspending? Are those 
who desire free coinage of silver in order that the 
barren wastes should be made to "blossom like the 
rose" any worse than those who want the Sherman 
law repealed in order to borrow foreign gold and 
retire clearing house certificates? There is a class 
of people whose interest in financial legislation is 
too often overlooked. The money-ioaner has just as 
much interest in the rise in the value of his product 
— money — as farmers and miners have in the in- 
creased price of their products. 

The man who has $10,000 in money becomes 
w^orth $20,000 in reality when prices fall one-half. 
Shall we assume that the money-lenders of this and 
other countries ignore the advantage w^hich an ap- 
preciated currency gives to them and desire it sim- 
ply for the benefit of the poor man and the laborer ? 
What refining influence is there in their business 
w^hich purges away the dross of selfishness and 
makes pure and patriotic only their motives? Has 
some new dispensation reversed the parable and left 
Lazarus in torment while Dives is borne aloft in 
Abraham 's bosom ? 

But is the silver miner after all so selfish as to 
be worthy of censure. Does he ask for some new 
legislation or for some innovation inaugurated in 
his behalf ? No. He pleads only for the restoration 
of the money of the fathers. He asks to have given 
back to him a right w^hich he enjoyed from 1792 to 
1873. During all those years he could deposit his 
silver bullion at the mints and receive full legal- 



112 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

tender coins at the rate of $1.29 for each ounce of 
silver, and during a part of the time his product 
could be converted into money at even a higher 
price. Free coinage can only give back to him 
what demonetization took away. He does not ask 
for a silver dollar redeemable in a gold dollar, but 
for a silver dollar which redeems itself. 

If the bullion value of silver has not been reduced 
by hostile legislation, the free coinage of silver at 
the present ratio can bring to the mine owner no 
benefit, except by enabling him to pay a debt al- 
ready contracted with less ounces of silver. If the 
price of his product has been reduced by hostile 
legislation, is he asking any more than we would ask 
under the same circumstances in seeking to remove 
the oppressive hand of the law? Let me suggest, 
too, that those who favor an international agree- 
ment are stopt from objecting to the profits of the 
silver mine owner, because an international agree- 
ment could only be effected at some ratio near to 
ours, probably 15^ to 1, and this would just as 
surely inure to the benefit of the owner of silver 
as would free coinage established by the independ- 
ent action of this country. 

If our opponents w^ere correct in asserting that 
the price of silver bullion could be maintained at 
129 cents an ounce by international agreement, but 
not by our separate action, then international bi- 
metalism would bring a larger profit to the mine 
owner than the free coinage of silver by this coun- 
try could. Let the international bimetalist, then, 
find some better objection to free coinage than that 
based on the mine owner's profit. 



BIMETALISM 113 

But what is the mine owner's profit? Has any 
one told you the average cost of mining an ounce 
of silver ? You have heard of some particular mine 
where silver can be produced at a low cost, but no 
one has attempted to give you any reliable data as 
to the average cost of production. I had a letter 
from Mr. Leech when he was Director of the Mint, 
saying that the Government is in possession of no \ 
data in regard to the cost of gold production and 
none of any value in regard to silver. No calcula- 
tion can be made as to the profits of mining which 
does not include money spent in prospecting and in 
mines which have ceased to pay, as well as those 
which are profitably worked. 

When we see a wheel of fortune with twenty-four 
paddles, see those paddles sold for 10 cents a piece, 
and see the holder of the winning paddle draw $2, 
we do not conclude that money can be profitably 
invested in a wheel of fortune. We know that those 
w^ho bought expended altogether $2.40 on the turn 
of the wheel, and that the man who won only re- 
ceived $2 ; but our opponents insist upon estimating 
the profits of silver mining by the cost of the win- 
ning paddle. It is safe to say that taking the gold 
and silver of the world — and it is more true of silver 
than of gold — every dollar 's worth of metal has cost 
a dollar. It is strange that those who watch so 
carefully lest the silver miner shall receive more 
for his product than the bare cost of production 
ignore the more fortunate gold miner. 

Did you ever hear a monometalist complain be- 
cause a man could produce 25.8 grains of gold, .9 
fine, at any price whatever, and yet take it to our 



114 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

mint and have it stamped into a dollar with full 
legal tender qualities? I saw at the World's Fair 
a few days ago a nugget of gold, just as it was 
found, worth over $3,000. What an outrage that 
the finder should be allowed to convert that into 
money at such an enormous profit ! And yet no 
advocate of honest money raises his hand to stop 
that crime. 

The fact is that the price of gold and silver does 
not depend ni^on the cost of production, but upon 
the law of supply and demand. [Applause.] It is 
true that production will stop when either metal 
cannot be produced at a profit; but so long as the 
demand continues equal to the supply the value of 
an ounce of either metal may be far above the cost 
of production. With most kinds of property a rise 
in price will cause increased production ; for in- 
stance, if the price of wheat rises faster than the 
price of other things, there will be a tendency to 
increased production until the price falls; but this 
tendency cannot be carried out in the case of the 
precious metals, because the metal must be found 
before it can be produced, and finding is uncertain. 

Between 1800 and 1849 an ounce of gold or silver 
would exchange for more of other things than it 
would from 1849 to 1873, yet during the latter 
period the production of both gold and silver 
greatly increased. It will be said that the pur- 
chasing power of an ounce of metal fell because of 
the increased supply; but that fall did not check 
production, nor has the rise in the purchasing 
power of an ounce of gold since 1873 increased the 
production. The production of both gold and silver 



BIMETALISM 115 

is controlled so largely by chance as to make some 
of the laws applicable to other property inapplica- 
ble to the precious metals. If the supply of gold 
decreases without any diminution of the demand 
the exchangeable value of each ounce of gold is 
bound to increase, altho the cost of producing the 
gold may continue to fall. 

Why do not the advocates of gold monometalism 
recognize and complain of the advantage given to 
gold by laws which increase the demand for it and, 
therefore, the value of each ounce ? Instead of that 
they confine themselves to the denunciation of the 
silver-mine owner. I have never advocated the use 
of either gold or silver as the means of giving em- 
ployment to miners, nor has the defense of bimet- 
alism been conducted by those interested in the pro- 
duction of silver. We favor the use of gold and 
silver as money because money is a necessity and 
because these metals, owing to special fitness, have 
been used from time immemorial. The entire an- 
nual supply of both metals, coined at the present 
ratio, does not afford too large a sum of money. 

If, as is estimated, two-thirds of the $130,000,000 
of gold produced annually are consumed in the arts, 
only $46,000,000 — or less than we need for this 
country alone — are left for coinage. If one-sixth 
of the $185,000,000 of silver produced annually is 
used in the arts, $155,000,000 are left for coinage. 
India has been in the habit of taking about one- 
third of that sum. Thus the total amount of gold 
and silver annually available for all the people of 
all the world is only about $200,000,000, or about, 
four times what we need in this country to keep 



116 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

pace with increasing population. And as popula- 
tion increases the annual addition to the money 
must also increase. 

The total sum of metalic money is a little less 
than $8,000,000,000. The $200,000,000 per annum 
is about two and a half per cent, on the total vol- 
ume of metalic money, taking no account of lost 
coins and shrinkage by abrasion. To quote again 
the language of Mr. Carlisle : 

"Mankind will be fortunate indeed if the annual produc- 
tion of gold coin shall keep pace with the annual increase 
of population, commerce and industry." 

An increase of one-third in the weight of the 
silver dollar by an international agreement would 
reduce by 50,000,000 the number of dollars which 
could be coined from the annual product of silver, 
which would amount to a decrease of about one- 
fourth of the entire increase of metalic money, while 
the abandonment of silver entirely would destroy 
three-quarters of the annual increase in metalic 
money, or possibly all of it, if we take into con- 
sideration the reduction of the gold supply by the 
closing of gold-producing silver mines. 

Thus it is almost certain that without silver the 
sum of metalic money would remain stationary, if 
not actually decrease, from year to year, while pop- 
ulation increases and new enterprises demand, from 
time to time, a larger sum of currency. Thus it 
will be seen that the money question is broader than 
the interest of a few mine owners. It touches every 
man, woman, and child in all the world, and affects 
those in every condition of life and society. 



BIMETALISM 117 

The interest of the mine owner is incidental. He 
profits by the use of silver as money just as the gold 
miner profits by the use of gold as money ; just as 
the newspaper profits by the law compelling the ad- 
vertising of foreclosures ; just as the seaport profits 
by the deepening of its harbor; just as the horse- 
seller would profit by a war which required the 
purchase of a large number of horses for cavalry 
service, or just as the undertaker would profit by 
the decent burial of a pauper at public expense. 

All of these receive an incidental benefit from 
public acts. Shall we complain if the use of gold 
and silver as money gives employment to men, 
builds up cities and fills our mountains with life 
and industry? Shall we oppress all debtors and 
derange all business agreements in order to prevent 
the producers of money metals from obtaining for 
them more than actual cost ? We do not reason that 
way in other things; why suppress the reason in. 
this matter because of cultivated prejudices against 
the white metal ? But what interest has the farmer 
in this subject, you may ask. The same that every 
laboring man has in a currency sufficient to carry 
on the commerce and business of a country. The 
employer cannot give work to men unless he can 
carry on the business at a profit, and he is hampered 
and embarrassed by a currency which appreciates 
because of its insufficiency. 

The farmer labors under a double disadvantage. 
He not only suffers as a producer from all those 
causes which reduce the price of property, but he 
is thrown into competition with the products of 
India. Without Indian competition his lot would 



k 



118 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

be hard enough, for if he is a land owner he finds 
his capital decreasing with an appreciating stand- 
ard, and if he owes on the land he finds his equity 
of redemption extinguished. The last census shows 
a real estate mortgage indebtedness in the five great 
agricultural States — Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kan- 
sas, and Nebraska — of more than one billion of dol- 
lars. A rising standard means a great deal of dis- 
tress to these mortgagors. But as I said, the 
producers of wheat and cotton have a special griev- 
ance, for the prices of those articles are governed 
largely by the prices in Liverpool, and as silver goes 
down our prices fall, while the rupee price remains 
the same. I quote from the agricultural report of 
1890, page 8 : 

"The recent legislation looking to the restoration of the 
bimetalic standard of our currency, and the consequent en- 
hancement of the value of silver, has unquestionably had 
much to do with the recent advance in the price of cereals. 
The same cause has advanced the price of wheat in Russia 
and India, and in the same degree reduced their power of 
competition. English gold was formerly exchanged for 
cheap silver and wheat purchased with the cheaper metal 
I was sold in Great Britain for gold. Much of this advan- 
tage is lost by the appreciation of silver in those countries. 
It is reasonable, therefore, to expect much higher prices for 
wheat than have been received in recent years." 

Mr. Rusk's reasoning is correct. Shall we by 
changing the ratio fix the price of wheat and cotton 
at the present low price ? If it is possible to do so it 
is no more than fair that we restore silver to its 
former place, and thus give back to the farmer some 
of his lost prosperity. Can silver be maintained on 
a parity with gold at the present ratio? It has been 
shown that if we should fail and our effort should 



BIMETALISM 119 

result in a single silver standard it would be better 
for us than the adoption of the gold standard — that 
is, that the worst that could come from the attempt 
would be far better than the best that our oppon- 
ents could offer us. 

It has been shown that dangers and disadvantages 
attend a change of ratio. It may now be added that 
no change in the ratio can be made with fairness or 
intelligence without first putting gold and silver 
upon a perfect equality in order to tell what the 
natural ratio is. If a new ratio is necessary, who 
can tell just what that ratio ought to be? Who 
knows to what extent the divergence between gold 
and silver is due to natural laws and to what extent 
it is due to artificial laws ? We know that the mere 
act of India in suspending free coinage, altho she 
continues to buy and coin on government account, 
reduced the price of silver more than 10 cents per 
ounce. Can any one doubt that the restoration 
of free coinage in that country would increase the 
bullion price of silver? Who doubts that the free 
coinage of silver by the United States would in- 
crease its bullion price ? 

The only question is how much. Is it only a 
guess, for no one can state with mathematical pre- 
cision what the rise would be. The full use of 
silver, too, would stop the increased demand for 
gold, and thus prevent any further rise in its price. 
It is because no one can speak with certainty that 
I insist that no change in the ratio can be intelli- 
gently made until both metals are offered equal 
privileges at the mint. When we have the free and 
unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present 



120 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

ratio, then, and then only, can we tell whether any 
of the apparent fall in the bullion price of silver 
is due to circumstances over which we have no con- 
trol, and if so, how much? If this experiment 
should demonstrate the necessity for a change of 
ratio it can be easily made, and should be made in 
such a way as to cause the least injury to society. 
But we can, in my judgment, maintain the parity 
at the present ratio. I state this without hesitation, 
notwithstanding the fact that our opponents do not 
disguise the contempt which they feel for one who 
can believe this possible. If the past teaches any- 
thing it teaches the possibility of this country main- 
taining the parity alone. The Royal Commission of 
England stated in its report that France did main- 
tain the parity at 15^ to 1, altho she has not half 
our population or enterprise. During the years 
when her mint laws controlled the price of gold and 
silver bullion the changes in the relative production 
of gold and silver were greater than they have been 
since. At one time before 1873 the value of the sil- 
ver product was related to the value of the gold 
product as 3 to 1, while at another time the relation 
was reversed, and the production of gold to silver 
was as 3 to 1. 

No such changes have occurred since; and the 
present value of the silver product is only iy2 to 1 
of gold. Much of the prejudice against silver is 
due to the fact that it has been falling as compared 
to gold. Let it begin to rise and it will become 
more acceptable as a money metal. Goschen, at the 
Paris Conference, very aptly stated the condition 
when he said : 



BIMETALISM 121 

"At present there is a vicious circle. States are afraid 
of employing silver on account of the depreciation, and the 
depreciation continues because States refuse to employ it." 

Let that "vicious circle" be broken and silver 
will resume its rightful place. We believe, in other 
words, that the opening of our mints to the free 
and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at 16 to 1 
would immediately result in restoring silver to the 
coinage value of $1.29 per ounce, not only here, but 
everywhere. That there could be no difference be- 
tween the dollar coined and the same weight of sil- 
ver uncoined, when one could be exchanged for the 
other, needs no argument. 

We do not believe that the gold dollar would go 
to a premium, because it could not find a better coin- 
age ratio elsewhere, and because it could be put to 
no purpose for which a silver dollar would not be 
as good. If our ratio were 1 to 14 our gold would, 
of course, be exchanged for silver; but with our 
ratio of 16 to 1 gold is worth more here than abroad, 
and foreign silver would not come here, because it 
is circulating at home at a better ratio than we 
offer. 

We need not concern ourselves, therefore, about 
the coin silver. All that we have to take care of 
is the annual product from the mines, about 40 per 
cent, of which is produced in this country. Under 
the Sherman law we furnish a market for about 
one-third of the world's annual product. I believe 
about one-sixth is used in the arts, which would 
leave about one-half for all the rest of the world. 
India has suspended free coinage temporarily, in 
anticipation of the repeal of the Sherman law. The 

I 12 



122 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Herschell report expressly states that the action was 
necessary, because no agreement with the United 
States could be secured. The language is as foh 
lows : 

"In a dispatch of the 31st of June, 1S92. the government 
of India exprest the deliberate opinion that, if it became 
clear that the Brussels conference was unlikely to arrive at 
a satisfactory conclusion, and if a direct agreement between 
India and the United States were found to be unattainable, 
the government of India should at once close their mints 
to the free coinage of silver and make arrangements for the 
introduction of a gold standard." 

There is no doubt of the restoration of free coin- 
age in India if this Government takes the lead, and 
with India taking the usual amount, but one-sixth 
of the annual supply if left for the other silver- 
using countries. There can be no flood of silver, 
nor will prices rise to any considerable extent — ex- 
cept the price of silver itself and a few of the staple 
products of agriculture which have fallen with sil- 
ver because of India's competition. General prices 
cannot rise unless the total number of dollars in- 
creases more rapidly than the need for dollars, 
which has been shown to be impossible with the 
present supply. The danger is that, taking all the 
gold and all the silver, we will not have enough 
money, and that there will still be some apprecia- 
tion in the standard of value. 

To recapitulate, then, there is not enough of 
either metal to form the basis for the world's me- 
talic money; both metals must therefore be used 
as full legal tender primary money. There is not 
enough of both metals to more than keep pace with 
the increased demand for money; silver cannot be 



BIMETALISM 123 

retained in circulation as a part of the world's 
money if the United States abandons it. This na- 
tion must, therefore, either retain the present law 
or make some further provision for silver. The only 
rational plan is to use both gold. and silver at some 
ratio with equal privileges at the mint. No change 
in the ratio can be made intelligently until both 
metals are put on an equality at the present ratio. 
The present ratio should be adopted if the parity 
can be maintained ; and, lastly, it can be. 

If these conclusions are correct what must be our 
action on the bill to unconditionally repeal the 
Sherman law? The Sherman law has a serious 
defect ; it treats silver as a commodity rather than 
as a money, and thus discriminates between silver 
and gold. The Sherman law was passed in 1890 as 
a substitute for what was known as the Bland law\ 
It will be remembered that the Bland law was 
forced upon the silver men as a compromise, and 
that the opponents of silver sought its repeal from 
the day it was passed. It will also be remembered 
that the Sherman law was in like manner forced 
upon the silver men as a compromise, and that the 
opponents of silver have sought its repeal ever since 
it became a law. The law provides for the compul- 
sory purchase of 54,000,000 ounces of silver per 
year, and for the issue of Treasury notes thereon 
at the gold value of the bullion. 

These notes are a legal tender and are redeemable 
in gold or silver at the option of the Government. 
There is also a clause in the law which states that 
it is the policy of this Government to maintain the 
parity between the metals. The Administration, 



124 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

it seems, has decided that the parity can only be 
maintained by violating a part of the law and 
giving the option to the holder instead of to the 
Government. Without discussing the administra- 
tion of the law let us consider the charges made 
against it. 

The main objection which we heard last spring 
was that the Treasury notes were used to draw 
gold out of the Treasury. If that objection w^ere 
a material one the bill might easily be amended 
so as to make the Treasury notes hereafter issued 
redeemable only in silver, like the silver certificates 
issued under the Bland law. But the objection 
is scarcely important enough for consideration. 
While the Treasury notes have been used to draw 
out gold, they need not have been used for that 
purpose, for we have $346,000,000 worth of green- 
backs with which gold can be drawn, so long as 
the Government gives the option to the holder. 
If all of the Treasury notes were destroyed the 
greenbacks are sufficient to draw out the $100,000,- 
000 reserve three times over, and then they can be 
reissued and used again. To complain of the Treas- 
ury notes while the greenbacks remain is like find- 
ing fault because the gate is open w^hen the whole 
fence is down, and reminds one of the man who 
made a box for his feline family, and cut a big hole 
for the cat to go in at and a little hole for the 
kittens to go in at, forgetting that the large hole 
would do for cats of all sizes. 

Just at this time the law is being made the 
scapegoat upon which all our financial ills are 
loaded, and its immediate and unconditional repeal 



BIMETALISM 125 

is demanded as the sole means by which prosperity 
can be restored to a troubled people. 

The main accusation against it now is that it 
destroys confidence, and that foreign money will 
not come here, because the holder is afraid that we 
will go to a silver standard. The exportation of 
gold has been pointed to as conclusive evidence 
that frightened English bondholders were throwing 
American securities upon the market and selling 
them to our people in exchange for gold. But now 
gold is coming back faster than it went away, and 
still we have the Sherman law unrepealed. Since 
that theory will not explain both the export and 
import of gold, let us accept a theory which will. 
The balance of trade has been largely against us 
during the last year, and gold went abroad to pay 
it, but now our exportation of breadstuffs has in- 
creased and the gold is returning. Its going was 
aggravated by the fact that Austria-Hungary was 
gathering in gold for resumption and was com- 
pelled to take a part from us. Instead of using 
that export of gold as a reason for going to a gold 
basis, it ought to make us realize the danger of 
depending solely upon a metal which some other 
nation may deprive us of at a critical moment. 

Mr. Cannon of Illinois. Will the gentleman 
permit me to interrupt him? 

Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 

Mr. Cannon of Illinois. I am in complete har- 
mony with what my friend is saying now. I ask 
him if he will allow me to request him not to omit 
to state that in the twelve months ending June 30 
last this same balance of trade that was against 



126 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

us not only took the gold of the United States, but 
nearly $17,000,000 of silver as well. 

Mr. Bryan. I think the statement made by the 
gentleman is correct. 

The Sherman law fails utterly to account for 
present stringency. Let me suggest a more reason- 
able cause for the trouble. Last spring an attempt 
was made to secure the unconditional repeal of the 
Sherman law. We had no panic then, but the same 
forces which have always opposed any legislation 
favorable to silver demanded that the purchase of 
bullion should stop. Some who believe that 15 per 
cent, reserve makes a bank safe became frightened 
lest a 25 or 30 per cent, reserve might not be suffi- 
cient to make the Government safe, and wanted 
an issue of gold bonds. The great argument used 
in favor of both these propositions was that money 
was being drawn from the Treasury and sent to 
Europe; that confidence was being destroyed and 
that a panic would follow. They emphasized and 
magnified the evils which would follow the depar- 
ture of gold; they worked themselves and their 
associates into a condition of fright which did cause 
financial stringency. Like the man who innocently 
gives the alarm of fire in a crowded hall, they 
excited a panic which soon got beyond control. 

The trouble now is that depositors have with- 
drawn their deposits from the banks for fear of 
loss, and the banks are compelled to draw in their 
loans to protect their reserves, and thus men who 
do business upon borrowed capital are crippled. 
The people have not lost faith in the Government 
or in the Government 's money. They do not refuse 



BIMETALISM 127 

silver or silver certificates. They are glad enough 
to get any kind of money. We were told last 
spring that gold was going to a premium, but 
recently in New York City men found a profitable 
business in the selling of silver certificates of small 
denominations at 2 per cent, premium, and on the 
5th of this month there appeared in the New York 
Herald and the New York Times this advertise- 
ment : 

WANTED— SILVER DOLLARS.— We desire to pur- 
chase at a premium of % per cent., or $7.50 per thousand, 
standard silver dollars, in sums of $1,000 or more, in return 
for our certified checks payable through the clearing-house. 
ZIMMERMANN & FORSHAY, 

Bankers, 11 Wall Street. 

About the same time the New York police force 
was paid in $20 gold pieces because of the scarcity 
of other kinds of money. How many of the failing 
banks have obeyed the law in regard to reserve? 
How many have crippled themselves by loaning too 
much to their officers and directors? The sit- 
uation can be stated in a few words: money can- 
not be secured to carry on business because the 
banks have no money to loan ; banks have no money 
to loan because the depositors have withdrawn 
their money; depositors have withdrawn tkeir 
money because they fear the solvency of the banks ; 
enterprises are stagnant because money is not in 
circulation. 

Will a repeal of the Sherman law cure these 
evils ? Can you cure hunger by a famine ? I know 
that there are some who tell us that we have plenty 
of money. If I may be pardoned for a personal 
allusion, their attitude reminds me of a remark 



128 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

made by my father-in-law just after he intrusted 
his daughter to my care, ' ' William, ' ' said he, laying 
his hand affectionately on my head, "while I have 
we shall not both want." Others say, ''What is 
the use of having more money? We cannot get it 
unless we have something to sell." That is true; 
but the price of what we sell depends largely upon 
the amount of money in circulation. How can we 
pay our debts without selling something, and how 
can we sell anything unless there is money in cir- 
culation to buy with ? We need money. The Sher- 
man law supplies a certain amount. Will the strin- 
gency be relieved by suspending that issue? If 
the advocates of repeal would take for their battle 
cry, "Stop issuing money," instead of "Stop buy- 
ing silver, ' ' would not their purpose be more plain ? 
But they say the repeal of the law will encourage 
foreign capital to come here by giving assurance 
that it will be repaid on a gold basis. Can we 
afford to buy confidence at that price? Can we 
afford to abandon the constitutional right to pay 
in either gold or silver in order to borrow foreign 
gold with the certainty of having to pay it back 
in appreciated dollars ? To my mind, Mr. Speaker, 
the remedy proposed seems not only dangerous and 
absurd, but entirely inadequate. Why try to bor- 
row foreign capital in order to induce the people 
in this country to redeposit their savings in the 
banks ? 

Why do not these financiers apply the remedy 
to the diseased part? If the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hendrix]. to whom I listened with 
pleasure, and who said, "I have come into this 



BIMETALISM 129 

Hall as a banker, I am here as the president of a 
national bank," desires to restore confidence, let 
him propose for the consideration of the members 
a bill to raise, by a small tax upon deposits, a sum 
sufficient to secure depositors against possible loss; 
or a bill to compel stockholders to put up security 
for their double liability; or to prevent stockhold- 
ers or officers from wrecking a bank to carry on 
their private business; or to limit the liabilities 
which a bank can assume upon a given amount of 
capital, so that there will be more margin to protect 
its creditors; or a bill to make more severe the 
punishment for embezzlement, so that a man can 
not rob a bank of a half -million and escape with 
five years, and can not be boarded at a hotel by a 
marshal, while the small thief suffers in a dungeon. 
Let him propose some real relief and this House 
will be glad to cooperate with him. 

Or, if there is immediate relief necessary in the 
increased issue of paper money, let our financiers 
press the suggestion made by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Johnson], viz., that the holders of Gov- 
ernment bonds be allowed to deposit them and 
draw the face in Treasury notes by remitting the 
interest and with the power of redeeming the bonds 
at any time. This will give immediate relief and 
will save the Government interest on the bonds 
while the money is out. But no, the only remedy 
proposed by these financiers at this time, w^hen 
business is at a standstill and when men are suffer- 
ing unemployed, is a remedy which will enable 
them to both control the currency and reap pecu- 
niary profit through its issue. 



130 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

One of the benefits of the Sherman law, so far 
as the currency is concerned, is that it compels 
the issue of a large amount of money annually, 
and but for this issue the present financial panic 
would, in my judgment, be far more severe than 
it is. That we need an annual increase in the 
currency is urged by Mr. Sherman himself in a 
speech advocating the passage of the Sherman law. 
On the 5th day of June, 1890, he said in the Senate : 

"Under the law of February, 1878, the purchase of 
$2,000,000 worth of silver bullion a month has by coinage 
produced annually an average of nearly $3,000,000 per month 
for a period of twelve years, but this amount, in view of 
the retirement of the bank notes, will not increase our cur- 
rency in proportion to our increasing population. If our 
present currency is estimated at $1,400,000,000, and our 
population is increasing at the ratio of 3 per cent, per 
annum, it woulld require $42,000,000 increased circulation 
each year to keep pace with the increase of population ; but 
as the increase of population is accompanied by a still 
greater ratio of increase of wealth and business, it was 
thought that an immediate increase of circulation might be 
obtained by larger purchases of silver bullion to an amount 
sufficient to make good the requirement of bank notes and 
keep pace with the growth of population. Assuming that 
$54,000,000 a year of additional currency is needed upon 
this basis, that amount is provided for in this bill by the 
issue of Treasury notes in exchange for bullion at the mar- 
ket price." 

This amount, by the fall in the price of bullion 
silver, has been largely reduced. Shall we wipe 
it out entirely? He insisted that the Sherman law 
gave to the people more money than the Bland law. 
and upon that ground its passage was defended 
before the people. Could it have been passed had 
it given less than the Bland law? Who would have 
dared to defend it if it had provided for no money 



BIMETALISM 131 

at all? What provision shall be made for the 
future? Upon that question our opponents are 
silent. The bill which they have proposed leaves 
us with no increased currency provided for. 

Some of the advocates of a gold standard, in 
the defense of their theory, find it necessary to 
dispute every well-established principle of finance. 
AVe are told that as civilization increases credit 
takes the place of money and that the volume of 
real money can be diminished without danger. That 
recalls the experience of the man who conceived 
the idea that a fish could be made to live without 
water. As the story goes, he put a herring, fresh 
from the sea, in a jar of salt water. By removing 
a little every morning and adding rainwater he 
gradually accustomed it to fresh water. Then by 
gradually removing the fresh water he accustomed 
it to air and finally kept it in a cage like a bird. 
One day, in his absence, his servant placed a cup 
of water in the cage in order that the fish might 
moisten its food; but alas! when the master came 
home he found that the fish had thoughtlessly put 
its head into the water and drowned ! 

From the arguments of some of our opponents 
we might be led to the conclusion that the time 
would come when money would not only be unnec- 
essary but really dangerous. 

The question, Mr. Speaker, is whether we shall 
increase our supply of primary money, as we do 
when we increase our gold and silver, or whether 
we shall increase our promises to pay real money, 
as we do when we increase national bank notes. 



132 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Mr. Bland. Will the gentleman permit a sug- 
gestion ? 

Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bland. The Treasury notes issued under 
the law for the purchase of the silver bullion are 
legal tender for all debts, public and private, and 
not like bank notes, mere credit money. 

Mr. Bryan. I understand that. I say they are 
primary money ; altho if it were construed to mean 
that they were merely a promise to pay gold, then 
they would be simply credit money to that extent. 

Mr. Bland. The distinction I wish to draw is 
this, that those Treasury notes issued in purchase 
of silver bullion are legal tender while a bank note 
is not. 

Mr. Bryan. And the distinction is a very just 
one, and a legal tender dollar is the better. 

The larger the superstructure of credit, as related 
to the basis of metal, the more unsubstantial our 
system. If we present a bank note for payment 
w^e receive a greenback; if we present a greenback 
for payment, the treasurer has a right to pay in 
silver dollars, and now our opponents want it 
understood that a silver dollar is only a promise 
to pay a gold dollar. Is that sound money? 

No, Mr. Speaker; if metalic money is sound 
money, then we who insist upon a base broad 
enough to support a currency redeemable in coin 
on demand, are the real friends of sound money, 
and those are ' ' dangerous fiatists ' ' who would make 
the metalic base so narrow as to compel the Gov- 
ernment to abandon it for the preservation of its 
people. If all the currency is built upon the small 



BIMETALISM 133 

basis of gold those who hold the gold will be the 
masters of the situation. We have a right to de- 
mand that the future financial policy shall be a 
part of the repealing act, so that we may choose 
between it and what we have and reject it if it is 
less favorable than the present law. And I may 
add in the language adopted by the bimetalic league 
a few days ago — 

"The refusal of the opponents of bimetalism to propose 
any substitute for the present law, or to elaborate any plan 
for the future, indicates either an ignorance of our finan- 
cial needs or an unwillingness to take the public into their 
confidence." 

But, sir, more serious than any other objection 
which can be made to the unconditional repeal of the 
Sherman law is the incontrovertible fact that a sus- 
pension of silver would tend to lower the price of 
silver bullion and thus make the restoration of 
bimetalism more difficult. That this will be the 
effect is proven not only by reason but by the utter- 
ances of Mr. Herschell's committee in discussing 
the finances of India. That report says : 

"In December last, a bill was introduced in the Senate 
to repeal the Sherman act, and another to suspend pur- 
chases under it. Whether any such measures will pass into 
law it is impossible to foretell, but it must be regarded as 
possible ; and although, in the light of past experience, pre- 
dictions on such a subject must be made with caution, it is 
certainly probable that the repeal of the Sherman act would 
be followed by a heavy fall in the price of silver." 

The first question for us to decide, then, is : are we 
in favor of bimetalism or a universal gold standard ? 
If we are in favor of bimetalism, the next question 
is will a fall in the bullion price of silver as meas- 
ured by gold help or hinder bimetalism? We are 



134 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

told by those who want a gold standard that it will 
help bimetalism ; but the query is, if it would, ' ' Why 
do they favor it?" It is sufficient to arouse sus- 
picion when every advocate of gold monometalism 
favors unconditional repeal, and the more emphatic 
his advocacy of gold the more earnest his desire 
for repeal. Is any subsequent legislation in behalf 
of silver intended ? If so, why not propose it now ? 
What money loaner, loaning upon a mortgage, 
would be willing to let the money go upon a promise 
that the mortgage should be delivered next week? 
Or what business man would cancel an obligation 
to-day on the promise of having the money paid 
to-morrow? Shall we be more careless in protect- 
ing the sacred interests of our constituents than a 
business man is in transacting his business? 

What excuse can we give to our people for 
releasing what we have with the expectation of 
getting something in the future when the advo- 
cates of repeal boldly demand, upon this floor, the 
adoption of a universal gold standard, and predict 
that its coming is as certain as the rising of to-mor- 
row 's sun. Read the utterances of these leaders 
in the crusade against silver. Read the famous 
article of the distinguished gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Cockran]. Read the article in the 
Forum of last February, from the pen of Hon. 
George Fred Williams, who, in the last Congress, 
spoke for those demanding unconditional repeal : 

"In the efforts which have thus far been made towards a 
repeal, a single question has been repeated by the silver 
men so often as to give a plain indication to the situation. 
What, it is asked, do you propose to put in place of silver 



BIMETALISM 135 

purchases? There never was a time more opportune to 
answer definitely this question with the single word, noth- 
ing." 

Let me join issue upon this question, and say 
that the time will never come in this country when 
that word ''nothing" will be accepted as a satis- 
factory answer. 

They tell us that our platform demands repeal, 
but does it demand repeal only? Shall we take 
away the "cowardly makeshift" before we restore 
the real thing for which that "temporary expe- 
dient" w^as substituted? As well denounce one 
kind of food because not the most nourishing and 
then refuse all food to the patient. They shall not 
be permitted to thus mutilate the platform. No 
such inexcusable attempt at garbling has been wit- 
nest since the minister took from the sentence ' ' Let 
him which is on the house-fop not come down to 
take anything out of his house" the words "top 
not come down," and inveighed against the fem- 
inine habit of wearing the hair in a knot on the 
top of the head. They demand of us unconditional 
repeal. They demand that we give up all that 
we have in the way of silver legislation before we 
know what we are to receive. Shall we surrender 
on these terms? 

Rollin tells us that the third Punic war was 
declared by the Romans and that a messenger was 
sent to Carthage to announce the declaration after 
the army had started on its way. The Carthage- 
nians at once sent representatives to treat for peace. 
The Romans first demanded the delivery of three 
hundred hostages before they would enter into 



136 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

negotiations. When three hundred sons of the 
nobles had been given into their hands they de- 
manded the surrender of all the arms and imple- 
ments of war before announcing the terms of the 
treaty. The conditions were sorrowfully but 
promptly complied with, and the people who 
boasted of a Hannibal and a Hamilcar gave up to 
their ancient enemies every weapon of offense and 
defense. Then the Roman consul, rising up before 
the humiliated representatives of Carthage, said: 

"I can not but commend you for the readiness with which 
you have obeyed every order. The decree of the Roman 
Senate is that Carthage shall be destroyed." 

Sirs, what will be the answer of the people whom 
you represent, who are wedded to the *'gold and 
silver coinage of the Constitution, ' ' if you vote for 
unconditional repeal and return to tell them that 
you were commended for the readiness with which 
you obeyed every order, but that Congress has 
decreed that one-half of the people 's metalic money 
shall be destroyed? 

They demand unconditional surrender, do they? 
Why, sirs, we are the ones to grant terms. Stand- 
ing by the pledges of all the parties in this country, 
backed by the history of a hundred years, sustained 
by the most sacred interests of humanity itself, we 
demand an unconditional surrender of the principle 
of gold monometalism as the first condition of 
peace. You demand surrender ! Ay, sirs, you may 
cry ''Peace, peace," but there is no peace. Just 
so long as there are people here who would chain 
this country to a single gold standard, there is 
war — eternal war; and it might just as well be 



BIMETALISM 137 

known now! I have said that we stand by the 
pledges of all platforms. Let me quote them: 

The Populist platform adopted by the national 
convention in 1892 contained these words: 

"We demand free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold 
at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1." 

As the members of that party, both in the Senate 
and in the House, stand ready to carry out the 
pledge there made, no appeal to them is necessary. 

The Republican national platform adopted in 
1888 contains this plank : 

"The Republican party is in favor of the use of both 
gold and silver as money, and condemns the policy of the 
Democratic administration in its efforts to demonetize silver." 

The same party in 1892 adopted a platform con- 
taining the following language : 

"The American people from tradition and interest favor 
bimetalism, and the Republican party demands the use of 
both gold and silver as standard money, such restrictions 
to be determined by contemplation of values of the two 
metals, so that the purchasing and debt-paying power of the 
dollar, whether of silver, gold, or paper, shall be equal at all 
times. 

"The interests of the producers of the country, its farmers 
and its w'orkingmen, demand that every dollar, paper or 
gold, issued by the Government, shall be as good as any 
other. We commend the wise and patriotic steps already 
taken by our Government to secure an international parity 
of value between gold and silver for use as money through- 
out the world." 

Are the Republican members of this House ready 
to abandon the system which the American people 
favor ' ' from tradition and interest ' ' ? Having won 
a Presidential election upon a platform which con- 
demned "the policy of the Democratic administra- 
tion in its efforts to demonetize silver," are they 

I 13 



138 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

ready to join in that demonetization? Having 
advocated the Sherman law because it gave an 
increased use of silver, are they ready to repeal it 
and make no provisions for silver at all ? Are they 
willing to go before the country confessing that 
they secured the present law by sharp practise, 
and only adopted it as an ingenious device for pre- 
venting free coinage, to be repealed as soon as the 
hour of danger was passed ? 

The Democratic platform of 1880 contained these 
words : 

"Honest money, consisting of gold and silver, and paper 
convertible into coin on demand," 

It would seem that at that time silver was honest 
money, altho the bullion value was considerably 
below the coinage value. 

In 1884 the Democratic platform contained this 
plank : 

"We believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage 
of the Constitution, rnd a circulating medium convertible 
into such money without loss." 

It would seem that at that time silver was con- 
sidered honest money. 

In 1888 the Democratic party did not express 
itself on the money question except by saying: 

"It renewed the pledge of its fidelity to Democratic faith, 
and reaffirms the platform adopted by its representatives in 
the convention of 1884." 

Since that platform of 1884 commended silver 
as an honest money, we must assume that the reaf- 
firming of that platform declared anew that silver 
was honest money as late as 1888, although at that 
time its bullion value had fallen still more. 



BIMETALISM 139 

The last utterance of a Democratic national con- 
vention upon this subject is contained in the plat- 
form adopted at Chicago in 1892. It is as follows : 

"We denounce the Republican legislation known as the 
Sherman act of 1890 as a cowardly makeshift, fraught with 
possibilities of danger in the future, which should make all 
of its supporters, as well as its author, anxious for its speedy 
repeal. We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the 
standard money of the country, and to the coinage of both 
gold and silver without discrimination against either metal 
or charge for mintage, but the dollar unit of coinage of both 
metals must be of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value 
or be adjusted through international agreement, or by such 
safeguards of legislation as shall insure the maintenance of 
the parity of the two metals, and the equal power of every 
dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of 
debts ; and we demand that all paper currency shall be kept 
at par with and redeemable in such coin. We insist upon 
this policy as especially necessary for the protection of the 
farmers and laboring classes, the first and most defenseless 
victims of unstable money and a fluctuating currency." 

Thus it will be seen that gold and silver have 
been indissolubly linked together in our platforms. 
Never in the history of the party has it taken a 
position in favor of a gold standard. On every 
vote taken in the House and Senate a majority of 
the party have been recorded not only in favor 
of bimetalism, but for the free and unlimited coin- 
age of gold and silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. 

The last platform pledges us to the use of both 
metals as standard money and to the free coinage 
of both metals at a fixt ratio. Does anyone believe 
that Mr. Cleveland could have been elected Presi- 
dent upon a platform declaring in favor of the 
unconditional repeal of the Sherman law? Can 
we go back to our people and tell them that, after 
denouncing for twenty years the crime of 1873, 



140 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

we have at last accepted it as a blessing? Shall 
bimetalism receive its deathblow in the House of 
its friends, and in the very Hall where innumer- 
able vows have been registered in its defense? 
What faith can be placed in platforms if their 
pledges can be violated with irno unity ? Is it right 
to rise above the power which creates us! Is it 
patriotic to refuse that legib^lation in favor of gold 
and silver which a majority of the people have 
always demanded? Is it necessary to betray all 
parties in order to treat this subject in a *' nonpar- 
tisan" way? 

The President has recommended unconditional 
repeal. It is not sufficient to say that he is honest 
— so were the mothers, who, with misguided zeal, 
threw their children into the Ganges. The ques- 
tion is not "Is he honest?" but "Is he right?" 
He won the confidence of the toilers of this country 
because he taught that "Public office is a public 
trust, ' ' and because he convinced them of his cour- 
age and his sincerity. But are they willing to say, 
in the language of Job, "Tho He slay me, yet will 
I trust Him?" Whence comes this irresistible de- 
mand for unconditional repeal? Are not the rep- 
resentatives here as near to the people and as apt 
to know their wishes ? Whence comes the demand ? 
Not from the workshop and the farm, not from the 
workingmen of this country, who create its wealth 
in time of peace and protect its flag in time of war, 
but from the middlemen, from what are termed the 
"business interests," and largely from that class 
which can force Congress to let it issue money at a 
pecuniary profit to itself if silver is abandoned. 



BIMETALISM 141 

The President has been deceived. He can no more 
judge the wishes of the great mass of our people 
by the expressions of these men than he can measure 
the ocean's silent depths by the foam upon its 
waves. 

Mr. Powderly, who spoke at Chicago a few days 
ago in favor of the free coinage of silver at the 
present ratio and against the unconditional repeal 
of the Sherman law, voiced the sentiment of more 
laboring men than have ever addressed the Presi- 
dent or this House in favor of repeal. Go among 
the agricultural classes; go among the poor, whose 
little is as precious to them as the rich man's for- 
tune is to him, and whose families are as dear, and 
you will not find the haste to destroy the issue of 
money or the unfriendliness to silver which is man^ 
ifested in money centers. 

This question can not be settled by typewritten 
recommendations and suggestions made by boards 
of trade and sent broadcast over the United States. 
It can only be settled by the great mass of the 
voters of this country who stand like the Rock of 
Gibraltar for the use of both gold and silver. 

There are thousands, yes, tens of thousands, aye, 
even millions, who have not yet ^' bowed the knee 
to Baal." Let the President take courage. Muehl- 
bach relates an incident in the life of the great 
military hero of France. At Marengo the Man of 
Destiny, sad and disheartened, thought the battle 
lost. He called to a drummer boy and ordered him 
to beat a retreat. The lad replied : 

"Sire, I do not know how. Dessaix has never taught me re- 
treat, but I can beat a charge. Oh, I can beat a charge that 



142 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

would make the dead fall into line! I beat that charge at 
the Bridge of Lodi ; I beat it at Mount Tabor; I beat it at 
the Pyramids; Oh, may I beat it here? 

The charg:e was ordered, the battle won, and 
Marengo was added to the victories of Napoleon. 
Oh, let our gallant leader draw inspiration from the 
street gamin of Paris. In the face of an enemy 
proud and confident the President has wavered. 
Engaged in the battle royal between the ''money 
power and the common people'^ he has ordered a 
retreat. Let him not be dismayed. 

He has won greater victories than Napoleon, for 
he is a warrior who has conquered without a sword. 
He restored fidelity in the public service; he con- 
verted Democratic hope into realization; he took 
up the banner of tariff reform and carried it to 
triumph. Let him continue that greater fight for 
*'the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution," 
to which three national platforms have pledged 
him. Let his clarion voice call the party hosts to 
arms; let him but speak the language of the Sena- 
tor from Texas, in reply to those who would destroy 
the use of silver: 

"In this hour fraught with peril to the whole country, I 
appeal to the unpurchased representatives of the American 
people to meet this bold and insolent demand like men. Let 
us stand in the breach and call the battle on and never 
leave the field until the people's money shall be restored to 
the mints on equal terms with gold, as it was years ago." 

Let this command be given, and the air will 
resound with the tramp of men scarred in a score 
of battles for the people's rights. Let this command 



k 



BIMETALISM 143 

be given and this Marengo will be our glory and 
not our shame. 

Well has it been said by the Senator from Mis- 
souri [Mr. Vest] that we have come to the parting 
of the ways. To-day the Democratic party stands 
between two great forces, each inviting its support. 
On the one side stand the corporate interests of 
the nation, its moneyed institutions, its aggrega- 
tions of wealth and capital, imperious, arrogant, 
eompassionless. They demand special legislation, 
favors, privileges, and immunities. They can sub- 
scribe magnificently to campaign fimds; they can 
strike down opposition with their all-pervading 
influence, and, to those who fawn and flatter, bring 
ease and plenty. They demand that the Democratic 
party shall become their agent to execute their 
merciless decrees. 

On the other side stands that unnumbered throng 
which gave a name to the Democratic party and 
for which it has assumed to speak. Work-worn and 
dust-begrimed, they make their sad appeal. They 
Jiea7^ of aver^age wealth increased on every side and 
feel the inequality of its distribution. They see 
an over-production of everything desired because 
of the underproduction of the ability to buy. They 
can not pay for loyalty except with their suffrages, 
and can only punish betrayal with their condemna- 
tion. Altho the ones who most deserve the foster- 
ing care of Government, their cries for help too 
often beat in vain against the outer wall, while 
others less deserving find ready access to legislative 
halls. 

This army, vast and daily vaster growing, begs 



144 bil YAN'S SPEECHES 

the party to be its champion in the present conflict. 
It cannot press its claims 'mid sounds of revelry. 
Its phalanxes do not form in grand parade, nor 
has it gaudy banners floating on the breeze. Its 
battle hymn is "Home, Sweet Home," its war cry 
"equality before the law." To the Democratic 
party, standing between these two irreconcilable 
forces, uncertain to which side to turn, and con- 
scious that upon its choice its fate depends, come 
the words of Israel's second lawgiver: "Choose 
you this day whom ye will serve." What will the 
answer be? Let me invoke the memory of him 
whose dust made sacred the soil of Monticello when 
he joined 

The dead but sceptered sovereigns who still rule 
Our spirits from their urns. 

He was called a demagogue and his followers a 
mob, but the immortal Jefferson dared to follow 
the best promptings of his heart. He placed man 
above matter, humanity above property, and, 
spurning the bribes of wealth and power, pleaded 
the cause of the common people. It was this devo- 
tion to their interests which made his party invin- 
cible while he lived and will make his name revered 
while history endures. And what message comes 
to us from the Hermitage? When a crisis like the 
present arose and the national bank of his day 
sought to control the politics of the nation, God 
raised up an Andrew Jackson, who had the cour- 
age to grapple with that great enemy, and by over- 
throwing it, he made himself the idol of the people 
and reinstated the Democratic party in public 
confidence. What will the decision be to-day ? The 



BIMETALISM 145 

Democratic party has won the greatest success in 
its history. Standing upon this victory-crowned 
summit, will it turn its face to the rising or the 
setting sun ? Will it choose blessings or cursings, 
life or death— which? Which? 




Ill 

UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 

Delivered in Congress on Nov. 1, 1893, when it was cer- 
tain that the purchasing clause of the Sherman act would 
be repealed. The speech calls attention to the similarity 
between the bill then before Congress and the bill intro- 
duced by Senator Sherman the year before. 

R. SPEAKER : Nothing that can be said at 
this time will affect the fate of this bill, 
but those gentlemen who vote for it 
should do so with a full and clear understand- 
ing of what they are doing. We have been 
told, sir, that the Democratic platform adopted 
in 1892 demanded the unconditional repeal of 
the Sherman law. No person has brought into 
this House a single platform utterance which will 
bear out that assertion. The platform does not 
even demand repeal, not to speak of unconditional 
repeal. It says: ''We denounce the Republican 
legislation known as the Sherman act of 1890 as a 
cowardly makeshift fraught with possibilities of 
danger in the future, which should make all of its 
supporters, as well as its author, anxious for its 
speedy repeal.'' Its author does seem to be ** anx- 
ious for its speedy repeal, ' ' and in this desire many 
of its supporters join with him ; but why should a 
Democratic Congress secure that repeal without 
first restoring, at least, the law which the Sherman 
law repealed? Then, too, the denunciation con- 
tained in the platform is directed against the whole 

(146) 



UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 



147 



law, not simply against the f)nrchase clause. Yet 
we are urged to support this bill for the uncondi- 
tional repeal of the purchase clause only as a Dem- 
ocratic measure. What is the history of this bill? 
It is identical in purpose and almost identical in 
language with a bill introduced by Senator Sher- 
man July 14, 1892. 

To show the similarity between the bill intro- 
duced then by Senator Sherman and the bill intro- 
duced since by Mr. Wilson, I place the two bills 
in parallel columns, and indicate by italics the 
words which appear in both bills: 



Fifty-second Congress, first 
session. S. 3423, intro- 
duced in the Senate Julj 
14, 1892, by Mr. Sher- 
man. 
A bill for the repeal of cer- 
tain parts of the act direct- 
ing the purchase of silver 
bullion and the issue of 
Treasury notes thereon, 
and for other purposes, 
approved July 14, 1890. 
Be it enacted hy the Sen- 
ate and House of Represent- 
atives of the United States 
of America in Congress as- 
sembled, That so much of 
the act entitled "A7i act di- 
recting the purchase of sil- 
ver tullion and the issue of 
Treasury notes thereon, and 
for other purposes" ap- 
proved July 14, 1890, as di- 
rects the Secretary of the 
Treasury to purchase, from 
time to time, silver bullion 
to the aggregate amount of 
4,500,000 ounces, or so much 



Fifty-third Congress, first 
session. H. R. 1, intro- 
duced in the House Au- 
gust 11, 1893, by Mr. 
Wilson. 
A bill to repeal a part of an 
act, approved July 14, 
1890, entitled "An act di- 
recting the purchase of sil- 
ver bullion and the issue 
of Treasury notes thereon, 
and for other purposes." 
Be it enacted by the Sen- 
ate and House of Represent- 
atives of the United States 
of America in Congress as- 
sembled, That so much of 
the act approved July 14, 
1890, entitled "An act di- 
recting the purchase of sil- 
ver bullion and issue of 
Treasury notes thereon, and 
for other purposes" as di- 
rects the Secretary of the 
Treasury to purchase, from 
time to time, silver bullion 
to the aggregate amount of 
4,500,000 ounces, or so much 



148 



BRYAN'S SPEECHES 



thereof as may be offered in 
each month, at the market 
price thereof, and to issue 
in payment for such pur- 
chases of silver bullion 
Treasury notes of the United 
iStatcs is hereby repealed, to 
take effect on the 1st day 
of January, 1893 ; Pro- 
vided, That this act shall 
not in any way affect or 
impair or change the legal 
qualities, redemption or use 
,t>f the Treasury notes is- 
sued under said act. 



thereof as may be offered in 
each month, at the market 
price thereof, not exceeding 
$1 for 371.25 grains of pure 
silver, and to issue in pay- 
ment for such purchases 
Treasury notes of the United 
States, be, and the same is 
hereby repealed; but this re- 
peal shall not impair or in 
any manner affect the legal- 
tender quality of the stand- 
ard silver dollars heretofore 
coined ; and the faith and 
credit of the United States 
are hereby pledged to main- 
tain the parity of the stand- 
ard gold and silver coins of 
the United States at the 
present legal ratio, or such 
other ratio as may be es- 
tablished by law. 

Does the Senator from Ohio originate Democratic 
measures ? 

The gentlemen who favor this bill may follow 
the leadership of Senator Sherman and call it 
Democratic ; but until he is converted to true prin- 
ciples of finance I shall not follow him, nor will I 
apply to his financial policy the name of Democracy 
or honesty. The Wilson bill passed the House, but 
a majority of the Democrats voted in favor of 
substituting the Bland law in the place of the Sher- 
man law before they voted for unconditional repeal, 
showing that they were not for unconditional repeal 
imtil Republican votes had deprived them of that 
which they preferred to unconditional repeal, 
namely, the Bland law. When the bill in its present 



UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 149 

form was reported to the Senate, four of the Dem- 
ocratic members of the Finance Committee opposed 
the bill and only two Democrats favored it. When 
the bill passed the Senate, twenty-two Democrats 
were recorded in favor of the bill and twenty-two 
against it, and that, too, in spite of the fact that 
every possible influence was brought to bear to 
secure Democratic support for the measure. Be- 
fore a vote was reached thirty-seven Democratic 
Senators agreed to a compromise, so that this bill 
does not come to us expressing the free and volun- 
tary desire of the Democratic party. 

Not only does unconditional repeal fail to carry 
out the pledge made in the last national platform, 
but it disregards the most important part of the 
financial plank, in not redeeming the promise to 
maintain *'the coinage of both gold and silver, 
without discrimination against either metal or 
charge for mintage." That promise meant some- 
thing. It was a square declaration in favor of 
bimetalism. The tail to this bill, added in the 
Senate as an amendment, pretends to promise a 
future fulfillment of platform })ledges. We are 
not here to promise, but to fulfil. We are not here 
to renew platform pledges, but to carry them out. 
But even if it were our duty to postpone bimetalism 
and record another promise, the Senate amendment 
eliminates from the platform the important declar- 
ation in favor of "the coinage of both gold and 
silver without discrimination against either metal 
or charge for mintage." To show the important 
difference between the Senate amendment and that 



150 



BRYAN'S SPEECHES 



part of our platform, I arrange them in parallel 
columns and designate the discarded words by 
italics. 



THE SENATE AMENDMENT. 

And it is hereby declared 
to be the policy of the 
United States to continue 
the use of both gold and sil- 
ver as standard money, and 
to coin both gold and silver 
into money of equal intrinsic 
and exchangeable value, 
such equality to be secured 
through international agree- 
ment, or by such safeguards 
of legislation as will insure 
the maintenance of the par- 
ity in value of the coins of 
the two metals and the equal 
power of every dollar at all 
times in the markets and in 
the payment of debts. And 
it is hereby further declared 
that the efforts of the Gov- 
ernment should be steadily 
directed to the establishment 
of such safe system of bi- 
metalism as will maintain 
at all times the equal power 
of every dollar coined or is- 
sued by the United States, 
in the markets and in the 
payment of debts. 

Were those important words stricken out by 
intention or was it simply an oversight? No, Mr. 
Speaker, those words were purposely left out be- 
cause those who are behind the bill never intended 
to carry out the Democratic platform; and if we 
can judge their purpose by their acts those who 
prepared the platform never intended when it was 



DEMOCRATIC PLATFOBM. 

We hold to the use of 
both gold and silver as the 
standard money of the coun- 
try, and to the coinage of 
both gold and silver without 
discrimination against either 
metal or charge for mintage, 
but the dollar unit of coin- 
age of both metals must be 
of equal intrinsic and ex- 
changeable value or be ad- 
justed through international 
agreement, or by such safe- 
guards of legislation as shall 
insure the maintenance of 
the parity of the two metals 
and the equal power of 
every dollar at all times in 
the markets and in the pay- 
ment of all debts. 



UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 151 

written that it should be fulfilled after it had se- 
cured the suffrage of the American people. 

When they had a strike at Homestead some time 
ago they used force to remedy what they consid- 
ered their grievances. We said then that the 
ballot, not the bullet, was the means by which the 
American people redressed their grievances. What 
shall we say now when people elected upon a plat- 
form and pledged to a principle disregard those 
pledges when they come to the legislative halls? 
It is a blow at representative government which 
we cannot afford to give. We are not sent here 
because we know more than others and can think 
for them. We are sent here to carry out the wishes, 
to represent the interests, and to protect the rights 
of those who sent us. What defense can we make 
if this bill is passed? It is not demanded by the 
people; the farmers and laborers w^ho constitute 
the great bulk of our people have never asked for 
it; those who speak for their organizations have 
never prayed for it. 

So far as the laborer has been heard from, he has 
denounced unconditional repeal; so far as the 
farmer has been heard from, he has denounced un- 
conditional repeal. Who gave the Eastern capital- 
ists the right to speak for these men. It is a 
contest between the producers of wealth and those 
who exchange or absorb it. We have heard a great 
deal about business interests and business men 
demanding repeal. Who are the business men? 
Are not those entitled to that name who are engaged 
in the production of the necessaries of life? Is 
the farmer less a business man than the broker, 



152 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

because the former spends three hundred and sixty- 
five days in producing a crop which will not bring 
him over a dollar a day for his labor, while the 
latter can make ten times the farmer's annual 
income in one successful bet on the future price 
of the farmer's product? I protest, Mr. Speaker, 
against the use of the name business men in such 
a way as to exclude the largest and most valuable 
class of business men in the country. Unconditional 
repeal stops the issue of money. "With this law 
gone, no more silver certificates can be issued, and 
no more silver bought. There is no law to provide 
for the issue of greenbacks. We must rely for our 
additional currency upon our share of the limited 
supply of gold, and the bank notes which national 
banks may find it profitable to issue. 

Does anybody deny that our currency must in- 
crease as our population increases and as our need 
for money increases? Does any one believe that 
our need for money can be supplied without affirm- 
ative legislation? Is it any more wise to destroy 
the present means for increasing our currency 
before a new plan is adopted than it would be to 
repeal the McKinley tariff act without putting some 
other revenue measure in its place? Our platform 
says: "AVe denounce the McKinley tariff law 
enacted by the Fifty -first Congress as the culminat- 
ing atrocity of class legislation," and ''we promise 
its repeal as one of the beneficent results that will 
follow the action of the people in entrusting power 
to the Democratic party." We also demanded a 
tariff for revenue only. Is there any more reason 
for separating the repeal of the Sherman law from 



UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 153 

the enactment of bimetalic legislation than there 
is for separating the repeal of the McKinley bill 
from the enactment of a "tariff for revenue only" 
measure ? Having harmonized with Mr. Sherman, 
shall we proceed to harmonize with Mr. McKinley? 
There are many Republicans who tell us now that 
the prospect of tariff reduction has destroyed confi- 
dence to a greater extent than the Sherman law 
has. 

In order to avoid another manufacturer's panic 
will it be necessary to abandon another tenet of 
the Democratic faith and give up all hope of tariff 
reduction ? Unconditional repeal will make it more 
difficult to restore free bimetalic coinage. It can 
not aid bimetalism without disappointing the dear- 
est hopes of those gentlemen who are most active 
in its support. If it were not so serious a matter 
it would be interesting to note the mortification 
which must come either to the gold supporters or 
to the silver supporters of unconditional repeal. 
They are working in perfect harmony to secure 
exactly opposite results by means of this bill. Who 
will be deceived? This is only the first step. It 
will be followed by an effort to secure an issue of 
bonds to maintain gold payments. Senator Sher- 
man, the new prophet of Democracy, has already 
stated that bonds must be issued, and we know 
that last spring the whole pressure of the moneyed 
interest was brought to bear to secure an issue of 
bonds then. Do you say that Congress would not 
dare to authorize the increase of the public debt in 

time of peace? What is there that this Congress 
I u 



154 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

may not dare to do after it has given its approval 
to the iniquitous measure now before us? 

It has also been suggested that the silver dollars 
now on hand be limited in their legal-tender qual- 
ities. We need not be surprized if this suggestion 
assumes real form in attempted legislation. It has 
already been proposed to increase the circulation 
of national banks and thus approve of a policy 
which our party has always denounced. But we 
need be surprized at nothing now. The party can 
never undergo a more complete transformation 
upon any question than it has upon the silver 
question, if the representatives reflect the senti- 
ments of those who sent them here. We have been 
told of the great blessings which are to follow un- 
conditional repeal. Every rise in stocks has been 
paraded as a forerunner of coming prosperity. I 
have taken occasion to examine the quotations on 
one of the staple products of the farm, and in order 
to secure a basis for calculation, I have taken wheat 
for December delivery. 

I give below the New York quotations on Decem- 
ber wheat, taken from the New York Prices Current. 
The quotations are for the first day of the months 
of June, July, August, September, October and 
October 30, or as near those dates as could be gath- 
ered from the Prices Current, which is published 
about twice a week: 

June 1, December wheat, 83^. 

(Special session called June 30, to meet August 7.) 

July 1, December wheat, 81 1/^. 

August 1, December wheat, 75. 

(Congress convened August 7.) 

September 1, December wheat, 74T/^. 



UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 155 

(Senate debate continuing.) 

October 1, December wheat, 74^. 

(Compromise abandoned and repeal assured about Octo- 
ber 23.) 

October 30, December wheat, 71 1^. 

(Unconditional repeal passed Senate evening of October 
30.) 

October 31, December wheat (Post-marked report), 69i/^. 

The following is an extract from the market 
report touching the general situation in New York 
and the grain market in Chicago. The report ap- 
pears in the morning issue of the Washington Post, 
November 1. 

BIG SCRAMBLE TO SELL — THE CHANGE OF SENTIMENT WAS A 

SLTRPEISE TO THE STREET — LONDON BEGAN THE RAID 

THOSE WHO BELIEVED THE PASSAGE O'F THE REPEAL BILL 
WOULD LEAD TO HEAVY BUYING ORDERS, AND HAD PUB- 
CHASED tOR A RISE. ALSO TURNED SELLERS AND SACRIFICED 
THEIR HOLDINGS — RALLIED A LITTLE AS THE MARKET CLOSED 
— THE BUSINESS ON 'CHANGE. 

New York, Octoher 31. 

Yesterday's vote by the Senate repealing the Sherman 
silver law did not have the effect on the stock market that 
the bulls expected. In the first place London cabled orders 
to sell various stocks, much to the disappointment of local 
operators, who were confident that the action of the Senate 
would result in a flood of buying orders. The liquidations 
for foreign account induced selling by operators who had 
added to their lines on the belief that the repeal of the silver 
purchase act would instantaneously bring about a boom. 

When it was seen that instead of buying the outside pub- 
lic was disposed to sell the weak-kneed bulls tried to get out. 

Chicago, October 31. 
Wheat was very weak throughout the entire session to- 
day. The opening was about 1 per cent, per bushel lower 
than the closing figures of Saturday, became weak, and after 
some minor fluctuations prices further declined 1^ to 2, 
then held steady, and the closing was 2i^ to 2^/^ lower than 
the last prices of Saturday. There was some surprize at the 
course of the market, which became consternation, and at one 
time amounted almost to a panic, when little or no reaction 



156 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

appeared and the price continued to sink. The fact of the 
matter was that traders were loaded with wheat and were 
merely waiting for the opportunity to sell. The bulge toward 
the end of last week gave them this chance and they were 
quick to take advantage of it. The silver repeal bill having 
been discounted for several days had little or no effect in the 
matter of sustaining prices. New York stocks were weak 
and much lower and this speculative feeling was communi- 
cated to wheat. New Yorkers who have been the big bulls 
for so long were selling today, and it was said that there 
were numerous orders from abroad on that side of the 
market. 

Corn was dull, the range being within three-eighths of a 
cent limit. The tone was steady and at times an undertone 
of firmness was noticeable, altho prices did not show any 
essential changes. The accumulations of cash corn during 
the past three days were the cause of a somewhat liberal 
offerings of futures early, but after a time they became light 
and the market dull. The opening was at a decline of y^ to 
^. but on a good demand an advance of % was made, re- 
ceding ^ to % later, and closing % to % under the final 
figures of Saturday. 

Oats were featureless, but the feeling was steady. There 
was very little trading and price changes were within ^4 
cent limit, the closing being % below Saturday. 

From the statement given it will appear that 
wheat has fallen more than 14 cents a bushel since 
the beginning of the month in which President 
Cleveland issued his call for the extra session. The 
wheat crop for 1892 was about 500,000,000 bushels. 
A fall of 1 cent in price means a loss of $5,000,000 
on the crop if those figures can be taken for this 
year's crop. Calculated upon December wheat the 
loss since June 1 has been over $70,000,000, or one- 
sixth of its value at the beginning of the decline. 
The fall of 2 cents on yesterday alone, after the 
repeal bill passed the Senate and its immediate 
passage in the House was assured, amounted to 
$10,000,000. The fall yesterday in wheat, corn, and 



UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 157 

oats calculated upon a year's crop amounted to 
more than $17,000,000. Are these the first fruits 
of repeal? Wall street was terribly agitated at 
the prospect of a slight reduction in the gold re- 
serve. Will they take no notice of this tremendous 
reduction in the farmer's reserve? The market 
report quoted above says : 

"Yesterday's vote by the Senate repealing the Sherman 
silver law did not have the effect on the stock market that 
the bulls expected. In the first place London cabled orders 
to sell various stocks, much to the disappointment of local 
operators, who were confident that the action of the Senate 
would result in a flood of buying orders.'' 

Is it possible that instead of money flowing to 
us, it is going to flow away in spite of repeal ? The 
argument most persistently made by the advocates 
of repeal was that money would at once flow to this 
country from Europe and relieve us of our strin- 
gency in the money market. The business centers 
became impatient because the Senate insisted upon 
a thorough discussion. Some of the papers even 
suggested that the Senate ought to be abolished 
because it stood in the way of the restoration of 
confidence. Finally the opposition was worn out, 
the bill was passed, just as the metropolitan press 
demanded, and behold it was greeted in the market 
by a general decline. We may now expect to hear 
that the vague, indefinite, and valueless tail added 
in the Senate as an amendment has prevented 
returning confidence, and that it is our highest 
duty to repeal the caudal appendage of the Wilson 
bill, just as the repeal of the purchase clause of 
the Sherman law was demanded. For twenty years 
we have denounced the demonetization act of 1873, 



158 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

and yet we are now prepared with our eyes open, 
fully conscious of what we are doing, to perpetrate 
the same crime. We leave silver just where it was 
left then, except that there was provision then for 
trade dollars which this bill does not contain. You 
may assume the responsibility. I shall not. 

The line of battle is laid down. The President's 
letter to Governor Northen expresses his opposition 
to the free and unlimited coinage of silver by this 
country alone. Upon that issue the next Congres- 
sional contest will be fought. Are we dependent 
or independent as a nation ? Shall we legislate for 
ourselves or shall we beg some foreign nation to 
help us provide for the financial wants of our own 
people ? 

We need not fear the result of such a contest. 

The patriotism of the American people is not 
yet gone, and we can confidently await their de- 
cision. 



IV 
AN INCOME TAX 

Delivered in Congress on Jan. 30, 1894, during the dis- 
cussion of the income tax amendment to th© Wilson Bill. 
Mr. Bryan was a member of the subcommittee of the Ways 
and Means Committee which framed the income tax amend- 
ment. 

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is this bill which 
has brought forth the vehement attack to 
which we have just listened? It is a bill 
reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, as 
the complement of the tariff bill. It, together with 
the tariff measure already considered, provides the 
necessary revenue for the support of the Govern- 
ment. The point of attack is the income tax, indi- 
vidual and corporation (which is expected to raise 
about $30,000,000), and to that I will devote the 
few minutes which are allowed for closing the de- 
bate. 

The gentleman from New York insists that suffi- 
cient revenue will be raised from the tariff schedules, 
together with the present internal-revenue taxes, 
and that it is therefore unnecessary to seek new 
objects for taxation. In this opinion he is not sup- 
ported by the other members of the committee, and 
we have been constrained to follow our own judg- 
ment rather than his. The internal-revenue bill 
which is now pending as an amendement to the 
tariff bill imposes a tax of 2 per cent, upon the 

(159) 



160 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

net incomes of corporations, and in the case of cor- 
porations no exemption is allowed. 

I need not give all the reasons which led the 
committee to recommend this tax, but will suggest 
two of the most important. The stockholder in a 
corporation limits his liability. When the statute 
creating the corporation is fully complied with the 
individual stockholder is secure, except to the ex- 
tent fixed by the statute, whereas the entire prop- 
erty of the indi^ddual is ordinarily liable for his 
debts. Another reason is that corporations enjoy 
certain privileges and franchises. Some are given 
the right of eminent domain, while others, such as 
street-car companies, are given the right to use the 
streets of the city — a franchise which increases in 
value with each passing year. Corporations occupy 
the time and attention of our Federal courts and 
enjoy the protection of the Federal Government 
and as they do not ordinarily pay taxes the com- 
mittee felt justified in proposing a light tax upon 
them. 

Some gentlemen have accused the committee of 
showing hostility to corporations. But, Mr. Chair- 
man, we are not hostile to corporations ; we simply 
believe that these creatures of the law, these ficti- 
tious persons, have no higher or dearer rights 
than the persons of flesh and blood whom God 
created and placed upon his footstool. The bill 
also imposes a tax of 2 per cent, upon individual 
incomes in excess of $4,000. We have proposed 
the maximum of exemption and the minimum of 
rate. The principle is not new in this country. For 
nearly ten years, during and after the war, an in- 



AN INCOME TAX 161 

come tax was levied, varying from 2^^ to 10 per 
cent., while the exemption ranged from $600 to 
$2,000. In England the rate for 1892 was a little 
more than 2 per cent., the amount exempt, $750, 
with an additional deduction of $600 on incomes 
of less than $2,000. The tax has been in force there 
in various forms for more than fifty years. 

In Prussia the income tax has been in operation 
for about twenty years; incomes under 900 marks 
are exempt, and the tax ranges from less than 1 
per cent, to about 4 per cent., according to the 
size of the income. 

Austria has tried the income tax for thirty years, 
the exemption being about $113, and the rate rang- 
ing from 8 per cent, up to 20 per cent. 

A large sum is collected from an income tax in 
Italy; only incomes under $77.20 are exempt, and 
the rate runs up as high as 13 per cent, on some 
incomes. 

In the Netherlands the income tax has been in 
operation since 1823. At present, incomes under 
$260 are exempt, and the rate ranges from 2 per 
cent, to 3 1-5 per cent., the latter rate being paid 
upon incomes in excess of $3,280. 

In Zurich, Switzerland, the income tax has been 
in operation for more than half a century. Incomes 
under $100 are exempt, and the rate ranges from 
about 1 per cent, to almost 8 per cent., according 
to the size of the income. 

It will thus be seen that the income tax is no 
new device, and it will also be noticed that the 
committee has proposed a tax lighter in rate and 



162 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

more liberal in exemption than that imposed in any 
of the countries named. 

If I were consulting my own preference I would 
rather have a graduated tax, and I believe that 
such a tax could be defended not only upon prin- 
ciple, but upon grounds of public policy as well ; 
but I gladly accept this bill as offering a more 
equitable plan for making up the deficit in our 
revenues than any other Avhich has been proposed. 
The details of the bill will be discussed to-morrow 
under the five-minute rule, and any necessary 
changes can be made. 

The committee presents the bill after careful 
consideration, but will cheerfully accept any 
changes which the wisdom of the House may sug- 
gest. The bill not only exempts from taxation, but 
from annoyance as well, every persons whose income 
is below $3,500. This is an important feature of 
the bill. In order to guard against fraud the bill 
provides that every person having an income of 
more than $3,500 shall make a return under oath, 
but no tax is collected unless the net income ex- 
ceeds $4,000. The bill also provides severe penalties 
to restrain the tax-collector from disclosing any 
information gained from the returns made by citi- 
zens. 

And now, Mr. Chairman, let us consider the 
objections which have been made. The gentleman 
from New York []\Ir. Bartlett] who addressed 
the House this forenoon, spent some time in trying 
to convince us that, while the Supreme Court had 
without dissent affirmed the constitutionality of an 
income tax, yet it might at some future time reverse 



AN INCOME TAX 163 

the decision, and that, therefore, this bill ought to 
be rejected. This question has been settled beyond 
controversy. The principle has come before the 
court on several occasions, and the decisions have 
always sustained the constitutionality of the income 
tax. (Hylton vs. United States, 3 Dall., 171 ; Deasie 
Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wall., 533 ; Scholey vs. Eew, 23 
Wall., 331 ; Pacific Insurance Company vs. Soule, 
7 Wall., 433.) 

In Springer vs. United States ( 102 United States, 
586) the question was directly raised upon the law 
in force from 1863 to 1873, and the court held that 
the income tax as then collected was not a direct 
tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and 
therefore need not be apportioned among the States 
according to their population. 

But gentlemen have denounced the income tax 
as class legislation, because it will affect more peo- 
ple in one section of the country than in another. 
Because the wealth of the country is, to a large 
extent, centered in certain cities and States does 
not make a bill sectional which imposes a tax in 
proportion to wealth. If New York and Massa- 
chusetts pay more tax under this law than other 
States, it will be because they have more taxable 
incomes within their borders. And why should 
not those sections pay most which enjoy most ? 

The census shows that the population of Massa- 
chusetts increased less than half a miUion between 
1880 and 1890, while the assessed value of her 
property increased more than half a billion during 
the same period. The population of New York 
increased about 900,000 between 1880 and 1890, 



164 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

while the assessed value of the property increased 
more than $1,100,000,000. On the other hand, while 
the population of Iowa and Kansas combined in- 
creased more than 700,000, their assessed valuation 
increased only a little more than $300,000,000. This 
bill is not in the line of class legislation, nor can 
it be regarded as legislation against a section, for 
the rate of taxation is the same on every income 
over $4,000, whether its possessor lives upon the 
Atlantic coast, in the Mississippi Valley or on the 
Pacific Slope. I only hope that we may in the 
future have more farmers in the agricultural dis- 
tricts whose incomes are large enough to tax. 

But the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cock- 
ran] has denounced as unjust the principle under- 
lying this tax. It is hardly necessary to read au- 
thorities to the House. There is no more just tax 
upon the statute books than the income tax, nor 
can any tax be proposed which is more equitable; 
and the principle is sustained by the most distin- 
guished writers on political economy. 

Adam Smith says : 

"The subjects of every State ought to contribute to the 
support of the Government, as nearly as possible in pro- 
portion to their respective abilities ; that is, in proportion to 
the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the pro- 
tection of the State. In the observation or neglect of this 
maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of 
taxation." 

The income tax is the only one which really ful- 
fills this requirement. But it is said that we single 
out some person with a large income and make him 
pay more than his share. And let me call attention 
here to a fatal mistake made by the distinguished 



AN INCOME TAX 165 

gentleman from New York [Mr. Cockran]. You 
who listened to his speech would have thought that 
the income tax was the only Federal tax proposed ; 
you would have supposed that it was the object of 
this bill to collect the entire revenue from an in- 
come tax. The gentleman forgets that the pend- 
ing tariff bill will collect upon imports more than 
one hundred and twenty millions of dollars — nearly 
ten times as much as we propose to collect from 
the individual income tax. Everybody knows that 
a tax upon consumption is an unequal tax, and that 
the poor man by means of it pays far out of propor- 
tion to the income which he enjoys. 

I read the other day in the New York World — 
and I gladly join in ascribing praise to that great 
daily for its courageous fight upon this subject in 
behalf of the common people — a description of the 
home of the richest woman in the United States. 
She owns property estimated at $60,000,000, and 
enjoys an income which can scarcely be less than 
$3,000,000, yet she lives at a cheap boarding house, 
and only spends a few hundred dollars a year. That 
woman, under your indirect system of taxation, 
does not pay as much toward the support of the 
Federal Government as a laboring man whose in- 
come of $500 is spent upon his family. 

Why, sir, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Cockran] said that the poor are opposed to this 
tax because they do not want to be deprived of 
participation in it, and that taxation instead of 
being a sign of servitude is a badge of freedom. 
If taxation is a badge of freedom, let me assure 



166 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

my friend that the poor people of this country are 
covered all over with the insignia of freemen. 

Notwithstanding the exemption proposed by this 
bill, the people whose incomes are less than $4,000 
will still contribute far more than their just share 
to the support of the Government. The gentleman 
says that he opposes this tax in the interest of the 
poor ! Oh, sirs, is it not enough to betray the cause ^ 
of the poor — must it be done with a kiss? 

Would it not be fairer for the gentleman to fling 
his burnished lance full in the face of the toiler, 
and not plead for the great fortunes of this country 
under cover of the poor man's name? The gentle- 
man also tells us that the rich will welcome this 
tax as a means of securing greater power. Let me 
call your attention to the resolutions passed by 
the New York Chamber of Commerce. I wonder 
how many poor men have membership in that body ! 
Here are the resolutions passed at a special meet- 
ing called for the purpose. The newspaper account 
says : 

"Resolutions were adopted declaring *the proposal to im- 
pose an income tax is unwise, unpolitic and unjust for the 
following reasons : 

" 'First. E'xperience during our late war demonstrated 
that an income tax was inquisitorial and odious to our people, 
and only tolerated as a war measure, and was abrogated by 
universal consent as soon as the condition of the country 
permitted. 

" 'Second. Experience has also shown that it is expensive 
to put in operation ; that it can not be fairly collected, and 
is an unjust distribution of the burdens of taxation and pro- 
motes evasions of the law. 

" 'Third. The proposal to exempt incomes under $4,000 is 
purely class legislation, which is socialistic and vicious in its 
tendency, and contrary to the traditions and principles of 
republican government.' 



AN INCOME TAX 167 

"Still another resolution was adopted declaring 'that in 
addition to an internal-revenue tax the necessary expenses 
of the Government should be collected through the custom- 
house, and that the Senators and Representatives in Con- 
gress from the State of New York be requested to strenuously 
oppose all attempts to reimpose an income tax upon the peo- 
ple of this country.' " 

They say that the income tax was ''only toler- 
ated as a war measure, and was abrogated by uni- 
versal consent as soon as the condition of the coun- 
try permitted." Abrogated by universal consent! 
What refreshing ignorance from such an intelligent 
source! If their knowledge of other facts recited 
in those resolutions is as accurate as that state- 
ment, how much weight their resolutions ought to 
have! Why, sir, there never has been a day since 
the war when a majority of the people of the United 
States opposed an income tax. It was only repealed 
by one vote in the Senate, and when under consider- 
ation was opposed by such distinguished Republi- 
cans as Senator Sherman of Ohio, Senator Morton 
of Indiana, and Senator Howe of Wisconsin. It 
was also opposed in the House by Mr. Voorhees, 
and by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hol- 
man] 

]\Ir. Patterson. And by Roger Q. Mills. 

Mr. Bryan. Yes, by Roger Q. Mills, I am in- 
formed, and a host of others. Not only did the 
Senators mentioned oppose repeal, but they spoke 
with emphasis in favor of the justice of an income 
tax. 

Senator Sherman said : 

"The Senator from New York and the Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts have led off in declaring against the income ta^. 
They have declared it to be invidious. Well, sir, all taxes 



168 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

are invidious. They say it is inquisitorial. Well, sir, there 
never was a tax in the world that was not inquisitorial. 

"The least inquisitorial of all is the income tax. 

"I hope that, after full discussion, nobody will vote for 
striking out the income tax. It seems to me to be one of 
the plainest propositions in the world. Put before the peo- 
ple of the United States the question whether the property 
of this country can not stand a tax of $20,000,000, when 
the consumption of the people stands a tax of $300,000,000, 
and I think they will quickly answer it. The property- 
holders of the country came here and demanded the repeal 
of the only tax that bears upon their property, when we 
have to tax everything for the food of the poor, the clothing 
of the poor, and all classes of our people $300,000,000. 

"There never was so just a tax levied as the income tax. 

"There is no objection that can be urged against the in- 
come tax that I can not point to in every tax. 

"Writers on political economy, as well as our own senti- 
ments of what is just and right, teach us that a man ought to 
pay taxes according to his income and in no other way." 

Could language be stronger or more pertinent to 
the present discussion? 

Senator Howe said: 

"There is not a tax on the books so little felt, so abso- 
lutely unfelt in the payment of it, as this income tax by the 
possessors of the great fortunes upon which it falls." 

"There is not a poor man in this country, not a laborer 
in this country, but what contributes more than 3, more 
than 10, more than 20 per cent, of all his earnings to the 
Treasury of the United States under those very laws against 
which I am protesting; and now we are invited to increase 
their contributions, and to release these trifling contribu- 
tions which we have been receiving from incomes hereto- 
fore." 

Senator Morton said: 

"The State taxation in Indiana, and, I undertake to say, 
of every State in the Union, has in it every inquisitorial 
feature that the income tax has. 

"The income tax is of all others the most equitable, 
because it is the truest measure that has yet been found 
of the productive property of the country." 



AN INCOME TAX 169 

The Chamber of Commerce, in its anxiety to 
defeat this tax, has distorted the facts of history, 
and yet the gentleman from New York says that 
the rich favor the law. If, sirs, they favor the law, 
why is it that the opposition of the law comes only 
from the districts in which the wealthy live? Are 
the Representatives from those districts unwilling 
to do what their people want done, and is it neces- 
sary for the great agricultural districts to come 
here and force upon the rich districts of the United 
States a tax which the rich love so much 1 

The gentleman from New York says that this tax 
is inquisitorial, that it pries into a man's private 
business. I sent to New York and obtained from 
the city chamberlain copies of assessment blanks 
used. The chamberlain writes: ''The matter of 
assessing personal taxes is arrived at by interroga- 
tion of the persons assessed by either of the com- 
missioners, which is a very rigorous cross-examina- 
tion in reference to the amount of personal property 
they have, and reductions are only made by an affi- 
davit asking for the same and sworn to before a 
tax commissioner of this county." 

The citizen, after giving in detail his stock in 
various banks, makes oath that "the full value of 
all personal property, exclusive of said bank shares 
owned by deponent (and not exempt by law from 
taxation) on the second Monday in January, 189 — , 

did not exceed $ ; that the just debts owing by 

deponent on said date amounted to $ , and that 

no portion of such debts has been deducted from 

I 15 



170 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

the assessment of any personal property of de- 
ponent, other than said bank shares, or has been 
used as an offset in the adjustment of any assess- 
ment for personal property, whether in this or in 
any other county or State, for the year 189 — , or 
incurred in the purchase of non-taxable property or 
securities, or for the purpose of evading taxation." 

Is the proposed tax any more inquisitorial than 
that? 

In Connecticut the citizen is required to give the 
number and value of various domestic animals, the 
number of watches, the value of jewelry, household 
furniture, library, etc. ; also bonds, stocks, money at 
interest, and money on deposit. Is the proposed 
tax any more inquisitorial than that ? 

In Nebraska the citizen is compelled to give the 
number and value of all domestic animals, watches, 
diamonds, jewelry, money, credits, etc., and what is 
true in Nebraska is true generally of all the States. 
Is an income tax more inquisitorial than those taxes 
upon personal property? I insist, sirs, that the in- 
come tax provided for in this bill is less inquisi- 
torial in its nature than the taxes which are found 
in every State in the Union. 

But they say that the income tax invites perjury ; 
that the man who has a large income will swear 
falsely, and thus avoid the payment of the tax ; and, 
indeed, the gentleman from IMassachusetts [Mr. 
Walker] admitted that his district was full of such 
people, and he said that our districts were, too. I 
suppose these constituents whom he accuses of per- 
jury are expected to pat him on the back when he 



AN INCOME TAX 171 

goes home and brag about the compliment he paid 
them. [Laughter and applause.] 

If there is a man in my district whose veracity is 
not worth 2 cents on the dollar, who will perjure 
himself to avoid the payment of a just tax imposed 
by law, I am going to wait until he pleads guilty 
before I make that charge against him. 

They say that we must be careful not to invite 
perjury. Why, sirs, this Government has too much 
important business on hand to spend its time trying 
to bolster up the morality of men who cannot be 
trusted to swear to their incomes. And let me sug- 
gest that gentlemen who come to this House and tell 
us that their districts are full of such persons are 
treading upon dangerous ground. If a man will 
hold up his hand to Heaven and perjure his soul to 
avoid a 2 per cent, tax due to his Government, how 
can you trust such a man when he goes into court 
and testifies in a case in which he has a personal 
interest ? 

If your districts are full of perjurers, if your 
districts are full of men who violate with impunity 
not only the laws but their oaths, do you not raise 
a question as to the honesty of the methods by 
which they have accumulated their fortunes? In- 
stead of abandoning just measures for fear some- 
body will perjure himself, let them be enacted into 
law, and then if any one perjures himself we can 
treat him like any other felon, and punish him for 
his perjury. 

But, gentlemen, say that some people will avoid 
the tax, and that therefore it is unfair to the people 
who pay. What law is fully obeyed? Why are 



172 BRYAN'S SPEECHES ^ 

criminal courts established, except to punish peo- 
ple who violate the laws which society has made? 
The man who pays his tax need not concern himself 
about the man who avoids it, unless, perhaps, he is 
willing to help prosecute the delinquent. The man 
who makes an honest return and complies with the 
law pays no more than the rate prescribed, and if 
the possessors of large fortunes escape by fraud the 
payment of one-half their income tax, they will still 
contribute far more than they do now to support 
the Federal Government, and to that extent relieve 
from burdens those who now pay more than their 
share. 

The gentleman from New York is especially in- 
dignant because incomes under $4,000 are exempt. 
Why, sir, this is not a new principle in legislation. 
The exemption of very small incomes might be justi- 
fied on the ground that the cost of collection would 
exceed the amount collected, but it is not necessary 
to urge this defense. The propriety of making cer- 
tain exemptions is everywhere recognized. So far 
as I have been able to investigate, every country 
which now imposes or has imposed an income tax 
has exempted small incomes from taxation. Nearly 
if not all of our States exempt certain kinds of 
property, or property to a certain amount. If an 
exemption tends toward socialism, as urged by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Cockran] and the 
Chamber of Commerce, is it possible that socialism 
has taken possession of the States of New York and 
Connecticut ? 

I find in the assessment blank used in New York 
the words ''and not exempt by law from taxation," 



AN INCOME TAX 173 

indicating that some property is exempt. The gen- 
tleman from New York had better eradicate this 
evidence of socialism, as he calls it, from the stat- 
utes of his own State before he denounces us for 
following the example set by New York. 

I find from the Connecticut assessment blank 
that farming utensils to the value of $200, me- 
chanics' tools to the value of $200, watches and 
jewelry to the value of $25, musical instruments 
to the value of $25, household furniture to the 
value of $500, libraries to the value of $200, and 
money on deposit to the amount of $100, are all 
exempt from the personal property tax. What a 
firm hold socialism seems to have gained upon Con- 
necticut ! 

The gentlemen who are so fearful of socialism 
w^hen the poor are exempted from an income tax 
view with indifference those methods of taxation 
which give the rich a substantial exemption. They 
weep more because fifteen millions are to be col- 
lected from the incomes of the rich than they do 
at the collection of three hundred millions upon the 
goods which the poor consume. And when an at- 
tempt is made to equalize these burdens, not fully, 
but partially only, the people of the South and 
West are called anarchists. 

I deny the accusation, sirs. It is among the peo- 
ple of the South and West, on the prairies and in 
the mountains, that you find the staunchest sup- 
porters of government and the best friends of law 
and order. 

You may not find among these people the great 
fortunes which are accumulated in cities, nor will 



174 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

you find the dark shadows which these fortunes 
throw over the community, but you wdll find those 
willing to protect the rights of property, even while 
they demand that property shall bear its share of 
taxation. You may not find among them so much 
of wealth, but you will find men who are not only 
willing to pay their taxes to support the Govern- 
ment, but are wdlling whenever necessary to offer 
up their lives in its defense. 

These people, sir, whom you call anarchists be- 
cause they ask that the burdens of government 
shall be equally borne, these people have ever borne 
the cross on Calvary and saved their country with 
their blood. 

Mr. George K. Holmes, of the Census Depart- 
ment, in an article recently published in the Fo- 
litical Science Quarterly, gives some tables showing 
the unequal distribution of property, and says: 
*' Otherwise stated, 91 per cent, of the 12,690,152 
families of the country own no more than about 29 
per cent, of the wealth, and 9 per cent, of the fami- 
lies own about 71 per cent, of the wealth. ' ' 

Is it unfair or unjust that the burden of taxation 
shall be equalized between these two classes? Who 
is it most needs a navy ? Is it the farmer wdio plods 
along behind the plow upon his farm, or is it the 
man whose property is situated in some great sea- 
port where it could be reached by an enemy 's guns ? 
Who demands a standing army? Is it the poor 
man as he goes about his work, or is it the capitalist 
who wants that army to supplement the local gov- 
ernment in protecting his property when he enters 
into a contest with his employes? For whom are 



AN INCOME TAX 175 

the great expenses of the Federal Government in- 
curred? Why, sir, when we ask that this small 
pittance shall be contributed to the expenses of the 
Federal Government, we are asking less than is 
just rather than more. But the gentleman from 
New York fears that this amendment will embarrass 
the bill, and denounces the action of the caucus as 
treason. 

It has never been the policy of the party to con- 
trol a member's vote upon the merits of a question 
by a caucus, and the caucus recently held was not to 
determine how any one should vote, but simply to 
decide whether the internal revenue bill should be 
attached to the tariff bill or brought up subsequent- 
ly as an independent measure. When a member 
comes to represent a constituency upon this floor, 
he is responsible to his conscience and to his con- 
stituency, and to them alone. But gentlemen will 
remember that no revenue bill exactly meets the 
wishes of any one member, and that we are con- 
tinually compelled to choose between something not 
w^holly desirable and something else less desirable 
still. 

Individual Democrats have opposed various tariff 
schedules, and have opposed them honestly ; but the 
House, in Committee of the Whole, has agreed upon 
a certain tariff policy, and the tariff bill as agreed 
upon leaves a deficit in the revenue. This deficit 
must be made up, and it must be made up in that 
way which is most agreeable to a majority of the 
House. If the pending amendment providing for 
the income tax is adopted by the House, it then 
becomes a part of the bill, and upon the final vote 



176 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

we shall be called upon to choose between the 
present law and a tariff-reform measure embodying 
an income tax. Each one must decide his course 
for himself. 

If any Democrat who has advocated tariff reform 
and denounced the present law is willing to go back 
to his people and say, ''Yes, the McKinley tariff 
is a crime; its loads are heavy and its opppression 
great, but I chose to make you bear the injustice 
still rather than bring you a relief accompanied 
by a light tax upon incomes," he can settle the 
matter with those whom he represents. If there 
be those who are willing to see their fellows op- 
pressed "with burdens grievous to be borne," and 
yet "touch not the burdens" lest wealth may be 
displeased, the rest of us can still carry on the 
work of tariff reform, even if in so doing we must 
impose a tax which embodies the just principle 
observed by Him who "tempers the wind to the 
shorn lamb." 

And, Mr. Chairman, I desire here to enter m;^ 
protest against the false political economy tauglu 
by our opponents in this debate and against the 
perversion of language which we have witnest. 
They tell us that it is better to consider expediency 
than equity in the adjustment of taxation. They 
tell us that it is right to tax consumption, and thus 
make the needy pay out of all proportion to their 
means, but that it is wrong to make a slight com- 
pensation for this system by exempting small in- 
comes from an income tax. They tell us that it is 
wise to limit the use of necessaries of life by heavy 
indirect taxation, but that it is vicious to lessen 



AN INCOIME TAX 177 

the enjoyment of the luxuries of life by a light tax 
upon large incomes. They tell us that those who 
make the load heaviest upon persons least able to 
bear it are distributing the burdens of government 
with an impartial hand, but that those who insist 
that each citizen should contribute to government 
in proportion as God has prospered him are blinded 
by prejudice against the rich. They call that man i 
a statesman whose ear is tuned to catch the slightest 
pulsations of a pocket-book, and denounce as a dem- 
agogue anyone who dares to listen to the heart-beat 
of humanity. -^ 

Let me refer again, in conclusion, to the state- 
ment made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Cockran], that the rich people of his city favor 
the income tax. In a letter which appeared in the 
New York World on the 7th of this month, "Ward 
McAllister, the leader of the "Four Hundred," 
enters a very emphatic protest against the income 
tax. Here is an extract: 

"In New York City and Brooklyn the local taxation is 
ridiculously high, in spite of the virtuous protest to the con- 
trary by the officials in authority. Add to this high local 
taxation an income tax of 2 per cent, on every income ex- 
ceeding $4,000, and many of our best people vpill be driven 
out of the country. An impression seems to exist in the 
minds of our great Democratic Solons in Congress that a 
rich man would give up all his wealth for the privilege of 
living in this country. A very short period of income taxa- 
tion would show these gentlemen their mistake. The cus- 
tom is growing from year to year for rich men to go abroad 
and live, where expenses for the necessaries and luxuries of 
life are not nearly so high as they are in this country. The 
United States, in spite of their much-boasted natural re- 
sources, could not maintain such a strain for any considera- 
ble length of time." 



178 BRYANTS SPEECHES 

But whither will these people fly ? If their tastes 
•are English, ''quite English, you know," and they 
stop in London, they will find a tax of more than 
2 per cent, assessed upon incomes; if they look for 
a place of refuge in Prussia, they will find an in- 
come tax of 4 per cent. ; if they search for seclusion 
among the mountains of Switzerland, they will find 
an income tax of 8 per cent. ; if they seek repose 
under the sunny skies of Italy, they will find an in- 
come tax of more than 12 per cent.; if they take 
up their abode in Austria, they will find a tax of 
20 per cent. I repeat. Whither will they fly? 

Mr. Weadock. The gentleman will allow me to 
suggest that at Monte Carlo such a man would not 
have to pay any tax at all. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Bryan. Then, Mr. Chairman, I presume 
to Monte Carlo he would go, and that there he 
would give up to the wheel of fortune all the 
wealth of which he would not give a part to sup- 
port the Government which enabled him to accumu- 
late it. 

Are there really any such people in this country ? 
Of all the mean men I have ever known, I have 
never known one so mean that I would be willing 
to say of him that his patriotism was less than 2 
per cent. deep. 

There is not a man whom I would charge with 
being willing to expatriate himself rather than 
contribute from his abundance to the support of 
the Government that protects him. 

If "some of our best people" prefer to leave 
the country rather than pay a tax of 2 per cent., 
God pity the worst. 



AN INCOME TAX 179^ 

If we have people who value free government so 
little that they prefer to live under monarchical 
institutions, even without an income tax, rather 
than live under the stars and stripes and pay a 2 
per cent, tax, we can better afford to lose them 
and their fortunes than risk the contaminating in- 
fluence of their presence. 

I will not attempt to characterize such persons. 
If Mr. McAllister is a true prophet, if we are to 
lose some of our "best people" by the imposition 
of an income tax, let them depart, and as they leave 
without regret the land of their birth, let them go 
with the poet 's curse ringing in their ears : 

Breathes there the man with soul so dead 
Who never to himself hath said, 

This is my own, my native land ! 
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned, 
As home his footsteps he hath turned 

From wandering on a foreign strand? 
If such there breathe, go, mark him well ; 
For him no minstrel raptures swell : 
High though his titles, proud his name. 
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim, 
Despite those titles, power, and pelf, 
The wretch, concentered all in self, 
Living, shall forfeit fair renown. 
And, doubly dying, shall go down 
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung, 
Unwept, unhonored, and unsung. 




V 
THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 

Delivered in Congress on April 10, 1894, the occasion of 
and reasons for its delivery being stated in the speech. 

R. CHAIRMAN: What I desire to say is 
not in connection with this bill. I have 
been trying for several days to get an op- 
portunity to present a matter of personal interest ; 
and I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed 
a few moments just now to present this matter. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Nebraska 
asks unanimous consent, in addressing the commit- 
tee, that he be permitted to go out of the rule and 
not confine himself strictly to the matter under 
debate. Is there objection ? (After a pause) : The 
Chair hears none. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, the matter is this: 
On last Saturday there appeared in the Times of 
this city a letter given to the public by the gentle- 
man from Maine [Mr. Reed] in which he criticized 
the use I had made, at Denver and other places, 
of a speech, or a portion of a speech, made by him 
at Boston on the 25th of last October. I do not 
want the House to feel that I have done the gen- 
tleman any injustice, and I desire to have placed 
in the Record the portion of the speech which I 
quoted and the criticism. The gentleman says in 

(180) 



THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 181 

the letter (which I will ask the Clerk to read in a 
few moments) : 

"You will notice that the member of Congress in question, 
instead of quoting the paragraph in question here in Wash- 
ington, where it could be met, went 2,000 miles west to 
air it." 

The reason the matter was not presented before 
Congress in the tariff debate was that the speech 
did not come to my notice until nearly a month 
after the bill had passed the House. I did not con- 
ceive that it was any injustice to a member of this 
House, especially to so prominent a member as the 
gentleman from Maine, to quote in any part of 
the country a speech made under the circumstances 
at Boston, at a banquet given by the Massachusetts 
Republican Club. But since I came back I have 
kept the clipping in my desk, and sought an oppor- 
tunity to present it in the Record, not in order 
that it might be met, because it cannot be met, but 
that the whole public might be able to see what a 
distinguished member said in a speech made to fit 
one part of the country, and how strangely it sounds 
in another part of the country. The gentleman 
said in the letter : 

"It was first started by a member of Congress in a speech 
in Denver. I was somewhat surprized when I read it, for, 
of course, separated from the context, it conveys an entirely 
incorrect idea." 

I will ask the Clerk to read the only part of that 
speech that I could find touching upon the tariff 
question, and if there is any other part that throws 
any light upon the part read, I shall be very glad 
to have it put into the Record. The speech from 



182 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

which I quoted was reported, as I supposed in full 
in the Boston Herald of October 26, 1893, and in 
the Boston Journal (a Republican paper), of same 
date, it was reported in identically the same lan- 
guage. Not only does it give the words, but gives 
the expressions of ''applause," "laughter," and 
''great applause," etc., with which the speech was 
punctured by the audience. I ask that the extract 
be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

"This is only one of its phases and one of its forms. If 
you people in Massachusetts desire to retain the system 
under which for thirty years you have been prosperous and 
great, you have got to show it by your votes on election 
day, and by no uncertain sign. [Applause.] 

"And let me tell you right here that there is no State so 
deeply interested as the State of Massachusetts. [Applause,] 
If it were not for its condition, I should say, "Let these men 
try it. Let us have the lesson of free trade burned into the 
quick; and then let us have peace." [Applause.] But when 
Massachusetts sits around to mourn her destroyed factories, 
her ruined industries, her ruined machine shops, she sits 
around to mourn for eternity : for if they are once destroyed 
the omnivorous West will do the manufacturing for the 
country. [Applause.] You have the start; you have the 
power ; you have the prestige. You can keep it or you can 
throw it away : and the only way in which you can keep it 
is by making the voice of the majority of your people to be 
heard, and to be heard across the country. [Applause.] 

"The Democratic party to-day is ruled by the South. I 
do not care anything about the geography of their position — 
when I say 'the South.' I mean by men who have no con- 
ception whatever of a Northern industrial city [applause], 
who have no idea of Lowell or Lawrence. That wealth 
which is diffused from one end of our great towns to an- 
other, they do not understand ; and if you who do under- 
stand it — and some of you are dependent for your livelihood 
upon it — neglect your duty you must not be surprized if 
these men carry out their ideas. Truth is mighty, but so is. 
ignorance." 



THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 183 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, in this letter the 
gentleman says, "The passage occurring in a short 
extemporaneous speech, with no point elaborated." 
I hardly think that it can be said that because a 
speech was extemporaneous, therefore one should 
not quote from it. Sometimes an extemporaneous 
speech will present a man's real thought better 
than a prepared speech, and I think that those who 
read the speech made by the gentleman in Boston 
will perhaps agree that if he had ever thought it 
would be reported or read in the West it might 
have been somewhat modified. 

But, extemporaneous as it was, it probably ex- 
prest the real sentiment and the real belief of the 
gentleman who made it. To show that the gist of 
it was not much changed upon reflection, let me 
read what the letter says. The letter, I presume, 
was not extemporaneous. In the letter he says : 

*'I pointed out to them that the legislation tendered them 
was foolish ; that the low duties of the Wilson bill would 
destroj' their manufactures in common with others, and that 
when they were once destroyed they would be rebuilt under 
re-established protection nearer the market and nearer the 
materials, as cheaply as in New England." 

Now, of course, that letter is not extemporaneous. 
It is a calm statement of a supposed condition that, 
under equal circumstances, the "omnivorous Wesf 
would do the manufacturing for the country; that 
if we could once take away the advantage which 
New England has in the system now existing, and 
start upon an equal footing, the manufactures of 
New England would be re-established in the "om- 
nivorous West. ' ' A little farther on he says : 



184 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

"As T said to Massachusetts T say to all other parts of 
the country, that enlightened selfishness teaches the doctrine 
of 'live and let live.' " 

I ask those who desire to pursue the subject to 
read that speeech and see whether they can find in 
it anywhere the idea of ''live and let live." No, 
sir. It is an appeal to sectionalism. "You have 
the start; you have the power; you have the pres- 
tige ; you can keep it or you can throw it away. ' ' In 
other words, if you keep it you can have the advant- 
age of the "omnivorous West," but if you do not 
make your voice heard across the country you will 
lose the artificial advantage given you by law, and 
when it comes to natural advantages the "omniv- 
orous West" will get ahead of you. 

In another place the gentleman says : 

"Of course such a free list would be very attractive to 
New England if she acted from pure selfishness." 

If you read the portion of the speech devoted 
to the tariff question you will imagine that pure 
selfishness is the only thing that can be appealed 
to in Massachusetts, because it is the only thing 
the gentleman appeals to there. He calls up the 
"ignorance" of the South — Massachusetts must be- 
ware of that. He calls up the great "omnivorous 
West^' — ^^lassachusetts must be careful about that. 
In this speech he says that "no State is so deeply 
interested (in protection) as Massachusetts. " Now, 
sir, that sounds strange in the West. We have 
been told out there that every State is just as 
much interested in protection as Massachusetts is. 

We have been told that protection is just as im- 
portant to the West as it is to the East, but here 



THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 185 

is a gentleman who is acknowledged the leader of 
the Republican party, not only in this House, but in 
the Nation, a gentleman who may go some day to 
the "omnivorous West," and ask its support for 
the Presidency, saj^s that if it were not for the 
condition of Massachusetts he would be willing to 
have free trade. But for that — ^not the condition 
of the country, but the condition of Massachusetts 
— he would be willing to say, "Let these men try 
it. Let us have the lesson of free trade burned 
into the quick, and then let us have peace, ' ' but for 
Massachusetts' sake he will not have it. 

But the strange thing about the explanation — 
w^hich may require more explanation than the origi- 
nal speech — is what the gentleman from Maine, 
looking back, supposes he had said. I have quoted 
the portion of the letter in which he says that he 
"pointed out to them that the legislation tendered 
them was foolish ; that the low duties of the Wilson 
bill would destroy their manufactures," etc. Now, 
Mr. Chairman, it is a strange thing that that speech 
not only did not contain a mention of the Wilson 
bill, not only did not warn them against the ' ' bribe ' ' 
of free raw material, but the speech was made more 
than a month before the Wilson bill was reported 
by the majority of the committee to the minority; 
it was made at a time when there was no Wilson 
bill, and when the Democrats did not know what 
the schedule would be. 

Now, is it not strange that in a prepared criti- 
cism, which not only attempts to explain the speech, 
but even criticizes me for using it — is it not strange, 
that in that prepared letter, the gentleman should 

113 



186 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

have thought that he spoke of a bill which was not 
in existence until a month after the speech was 
made? 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will ask the Clerk to read 
the letter which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

House of Representatives, United States, 

Washington, D. C, April 6, 1894. 

"My Dear Sir : Your favor received. I have noticed the 
paragraph you sent me making its way over the West. It 
was first started by a member of Congress in a speech in 
Denver. I was somewhat surprized when I read it, for, of 
course, separated from the context, it conveys an eiitirely 
incorrect idea. The passage occurred in a short extem- 
poraneous speech, with no point elaborated. It was wKan 
the attempt was being made to secure the aid of New Eng- 
land by sacrificing the interests of the West under guise of 
giving New England free raw material by removing the duty 
on coal, iron, and wool. 

"Of course such a free list would be very attractive to 
New England, if she acted from pure selfishness. But I 
took occasion in a few words of incomplete statement, but 
which the audience I addrest perfectly understood, to point 
out how short sighted it was for New England to accept the 
bribe. Already many Massachusetts manufacturers had 
legitimately gone West, and more must do so, the coarser 
going first. Under these circumstances, perfectly under- 
stood by my audience, some short-sighted men were trying, 
by the promise of free coal, free iron ore, and free wool, to 
persuade New England that she could monopolize the manu- 
facturing, 

"I pointed out to them that the legislation tendered them 
was foolish: that the low duties of the Wilson bill would 
destroy their manufactures, in common with others, and that 
when they were once destroyed, they would be rebuilt under 
re-established protection, nearer the market and nearer the 
materials, as cheaply as in New Encland. In short, if New 
England men helped ruin the country, the ruin would be 
first and most complete for them on their unkindly soil. 
Such, in my judgment, would be the fact, and this ruin the 
country cannot afford, no matter where the destroyed manu- 
factures are. An idle factory goes to pieces in five years, 



THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 187 

and to destroy expensive plants and to throw away all the 
capital involved would mean that the United States, and, 
most of all, New England, would have to halt in its prog- 
ress until all these vast sums were re-eamed and reinvested. 

"Manufacturers are now steadily and legitimately advanc- 
ing westward and southward under the present system, and 
doing so as fast as is consistent with solid material growth. 
Massachusetts men and other men are already transferring 
a part of their capital, and in due time, without shock, the 
Western and Southern manufactories will do their full share 
of the manufacturing business of the country. The manu- 
facturing of coarse cotton cloths has already gone from New 
England to the South. 

"The mighty and 'omnivorous' West is truly great in all 
that will make riches and consumable wealth, and if this 
destruction called the Wilson bill can be stayed all parts 
of the country will prosper and capital and labor will not be 
wasted, 

"As I said to Massachusetts I say to all other parts of 
the country, that enlightened selfishness teaches the doctrine 
of 'live and let live.' " 

"You will notice that the member of Congress in question, 
instead of quoting the paragraph in question here in Wash- 
ington, where it could be met, went 2,000 miles west to 
air it. I am surprised that any man E'ast or West should 
deem it worth while to credit me with opposition to the 
Wilson bill because it would build up manufactures in the 
West, when everybody knows it will destroy all manufac- 
tures. 

"It is the desire and expectation of protectionists that the 
West and South will follow or even surpass the example of 
New England in developing manufacturing industries, as 
they are now fast doing. The Wilson bill will bring the 
South and West into competition in manufacturing, with 
M'ages much lower than their wages, instead of into compe* 
tition w^ith the higher w^ages of New England, as now, 

"Very truly yours, T. B. REED. 

*'C. L, Vaughan, Esq., Hutchinson, Kans." 

Mr. Grosvenor. I rise to a parliamentary in- 
quiry. 

The Chairman, The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Grosvenor, Is this debate upon the Wilson 
bill or upon the Hill substitute? 



188 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

The Chairman. The Chair will state to the gen- 
tleman, if he was not present at the time, that the 
Chair recognized the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Livingston] in his own right for an hour, under 
the rules ; that after speaking for fifteen or eighteen 
minutes the gentleman from Georgia yielded the 
remainder of his time to the gentleman from Ne- 
braska [Mr. Bryan]. The gentleman from Ne- 
braska yielded a few minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Gear] and the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Dolliver] ; and when the gentleman him- 
self took the floor he asked unanimous consent — 
in violation of the rule, as the Chair stated — to 
speak to this matter. There was no objection, and 
the Chair so stated. The gentleman is in order. 

Mr. Grosvenor. Then it is ''this matter'' that 
is under discussion. 

The Chairman. It does not make any difference 
what the "matter" is; the gentleman has the con- 
sent of the committee to speak. 

Mr. Boutelle. That is what we want to know 
— what is the matter? 

A Member (on the Democratic side). You will 
find out. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, this is put in the 
Record because I would not have the House and 
the people to whom that letter was addrest by the 
gentleman (for it was given to the public) think 
that I have done anything wrong or done any in- 
justice to the gentleman from Maine. I thought 
it wise to put both the speech from which I quoted 
and the letter which explains the speech in the 
Record for these reasons, in order that those who 



THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 189 

read the letter may have the means of knowing 
whether I was guilty of taking a sentence out of 
its proper connection, and thereby making it con- 
vey an erroneous idea ; and also that they may know 
that I had not spoken of this speech 2,000 miles 
away, and was unwilling to speak of it here ' ' where 
it could be met." 

I wanted the matter put in the Record ''where 
it could be met," for fear that some "Western Re- 
publican might take up the line of argument which 
the gentleman followed in Massachusetts and ad- 
dress the people on the same line of selfishness. I 
was afraid that some protectionist out there might 
appeal to his people, and using the gentleman as 
authority say, ' ' We have not the start, we have not 
the power, and we have not the prestige; but ii 
we can once wipe out the tariff we will get the 
start, and get the power, and get the prestige." 
For fear they might do that, I wanted to bring the 
matter forward here where the gentleman could 
explain it, so that no protectionist in the West 
would have an excuse for misunderstanding him 
or for applying to the Western country the argu- 
ment which has been and is applied to the Eastern 
country. 

We have told them out there that the real pur- 
pose of protection is to give the East an advantage ; 
but we never before found the leader of the Repub- 
lican party willing to say that no State in the 
Union was ''so deeply interested as Massachusetts" 
in maintaining protection. We have told them that 
if it were not for the great "combines" which have 
been built up and which have enabled trusts to 



190 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

drive out new industries, and then under the pro- 
tection of a tariff recoup themselves out of the 
pockets of the people, there might be great indus- 
tries built up in the ''omnivorous West"; but we 
never had a great Republican so nearly tell us be- 
fore; and I wanted this put in the Record so that 
if there is an explanation of it the people of the 
West may have it; and if there is no explanation, 
then let them know that the people who go before 
them and advocate protection on the ground that 
it is for the whole country, go down to Massachu- 
setts, and, raising up the ' * ignorance ' ' of the South 
and the ' ' omnivorous West, ' ' plead for special priv- 
ileges for their own industries. 



VI 
MONEY 

Prepared and inserted in the Congressional Record on 
June 5, 1894, but for lack of time it was not delivered. The 
speech discusses paper money, the House having then under 
consideration a bill to suspend the 10 per cent, tax on state 
bank notes. 

MR. SPEAKER: The members of the com- 
mittee, following a time-honored custom, 
have opened this discussion and have con- 
sumed all the time allowed for general debate. 
The House has indulged me so generously on for- 
mer occasions that I shall not now claim much of 
its time. The question under discussion, how- 
ever, is so important that I shall avail myself of 
the general leave given, to extend my remarks in 
the Record, in order that my constituents may 
know the reasons which lead me to the conclu- 
sion to be exprest by my vote. I shall oppose the 
bill reported by the committee because I am not 
willing to extend to a few banks a relief which is 
denied to other members of the community. The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ten- 
nessee [Mr. Cox] to repeal the 10 per cent, tax on 
State bank notes opens up the w^hole subject of 
paper money, and I shall follow the examples set by 
others and discuss the matter somewhat elaborately. 
No subject can more vitally concern the people 
than this, for money is the lifeblood of commerce, 

(191) 



102 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

and the financial health of the whole Nation de- 
pends upon the kind and quantity in circulation. 

''Money answereth all things," said Solomon 
nearly three thousand years ago, and the expression 
is as applicable to our time as it was to his. It is 
written that ''the love of money is the root of all 
evil," and we know by observation that it is well 
nigh omnipotent for weal or woe. It can bless like 
the gentle dews of Heaven, and it can cover a 
greater multitude of sins even than charity. 

Some have denied that the States have a consti- 
tutional right to charter banks of issue, but I shall 
assume the existence of such a right. 

Some have denied the constitutionality of the law 
imposing a tax upon State bank notes, but I shall 
accept as conclusive the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, and assume that Con- 
gress has the power to impose a tax upon the notes 
issued by such banks, even though the law in effect 
prohibits the issue and circulation of such notes, 
and even tho some other means of restriction might 
be preferred. It has been stated that every Demo- 
crat is in duty bound to vote for the repeal of the 
State bank tax, because of the plank relating to 
that subject adopted by the last Democratic Na- 
tional convention. A platform can only bind those 
who run upon it. 

President Cleveland is, of course, pledged to the 
repeal of the tax, because he accepted a nomination 
and an election upon the National Democratic plat- 
form of 1892. Those also are pledged to repeal 
whose nominating conventions indorsed the Na- 
tional platform, and those are perhaps bound, also, 



MONEY 193 

who ran as Democrats without expressly repudi- 
ating that part of the National platform. In my 
own case, I was not only nominated before the 
adoption of the National platform by the Chicago 
convention, but I expressly repudiated in my can- 
vass the plank which declared in favor of repealing 
the State bank tax. 

In the Fifty-second Congress I voted against re- 
pealing this tax, and, as a candidate for reelection, 
promised my constituents that I would vote against 
it again if the question came before the Fifty-third 
Congress. If there is any person in my district who 
favors a revival of State bank currency, I am not 
aware of it. In recording my vote against a repeal 
of this tax I am expressing, therefore, the opinion 
of my constituents and carrying out my pledges, as 
well as recording my own best judgment. Some 
have urged the return to State bank currency on 
the ground that more money is needed, and that it 
can be supplied in no other way. 

The argument comes with but little force from 
those who voted for, and now justify, the uncondi- 
tional repeal of the Sherman act, because that law 
provided us with nearly fifty millions of legal ten- 
der money annually. Those who opposed uncondi- 
tional repeal and who have consistently favored an 
increased supply of good money might justify their 
acceptance of a State bank currency as a last resort 
if they could show that the advantages brought by 
such a currency were greater than the dangers at- 
tendant upon it. 

I shall attempt to show, first, that we should use 
as money all the gold and silver which will come 



194 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

to our mints; and, second, that whatever paper 
money we need should be issued by the General 
Government. 

''Money/' as defined by Cirnuschi, *'is a value 
created by law to be a scale of valuation and a valid 
tender for payment. ' ' Perhaps in a technical sense 
the term ''money" should be applied only to those 
instruments of exchange which are endowed with 
legal tender qualities, but the term is used gener- 
ally to cover not only coin and legal tender paper, 
but also notes and certificates which are intended to 
circulate from hand to hand like money. 

There is a clear and well-defined difference be- 
tween the promissory note of the individual or of 
the corporation and what is known as a bank note. 
The former travels only where the maker or in- 
dorser is known, and each person who receives the 
note investigates for himself as to the responsibility 
of those who are obligated to pay it. In the case 
of the latter, however, the person who receives the 
bank note accepts it on the faith of the law which 
charters the bank and regulates the amount of the 
notes and the manner in which they are secured. 

The first principle to be considered in the study 
of money is that there is a close and intimate rela- 
tion between the value of each dollar and the total 
number of dollars in circulation. John Stuart Mill 
says : ' ' The value, or purchasing power, of money 
depends, in the first instance, on demand and sup- 
ply. But demand and supply present themselves in 
a somewhat different shape from the demand and 
supply of other things. ' ' 

Laveleye says: "The value of money, like that 



MONEY 195 

of any other object, depends on the relation between 
supply and demand. ' ' 

Cirnuschi appeared before the United States 
Monetary Commission in 1877, and his testimony 
contained the following question and answer: 

' ' Question. Supposing the gold and silver metals 

to have no other use than as money, would they then 

maintain the same value that they now maintain as 

money ? ' ' 

"Answer. There would be a diminution of their purchas- 
ing power, because the purchasing power of money is in 
direct proportion to the volume of money now existing. If 
all the gold and silver are used solely as money, all the orna- 
ments and all the jewelry will be melted and coined, and the 
volume of money will be increased. It will be exactly as if 
a new mine of money had been opened. And the volume of 
circulating money being made larger than before, there will 
be a corresponding diminution in the purchasing power of 
the metalic dollar. 

While it cannot be said with mathematical ac- 
curacy that the value of each unit of money will in- 
crease in exactly the same proportion that the total 
number of units decreases, and vice versa, it can be 
asserted without fear of contradiction that under 
similar conditions an increase in the volume of the 
currency will decrease the value of the dollar as 
measured by other kinds of property, and that a 
decrease in the volume of currency will cause an 
increase in the purchasing power of the dollar. To 
illustrate this point, let us suppose the sudden dis- 
covery of a quantity of gold and silver equal to the 
present volume of metalic money. We have now 
about eight billions of gold and silver coin in the 
world, a little more than half of it being silver. 

Every one understands that if the newly discov- 



196 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

ered coin could be added to the circulation and the 
volume thereby doubled, the value of each dollar 
would fall as shown by its purchasing power. The 
reverse would be true if it were possible to wipe 
out of existence one-half of the present metalic 
money. We recognize that the value of a dollar de- 
pends upon the number of dollars when we take an 
extreme case like the one above supposed; if the 
actual change in the volume is less the value of the 
unit will fluctuate less, but the principle being once 
established the variation is a matter of degree only. 

We often hear people say, ''What if the amount 
of money is increased? I must have something to 
exchange for it before I can obtain it." That is 
true, but the amount of money which a person can 
obtain for what he has to sell depends upon the 
amount in circulation. It may make a great dif- 
ference to the man who sells wheat whether he re- 
ceives 50 cents for it or $1, if he has a debt to pay. 
If a general fall in prices is produced by an appre- 
ciation of the value of money, the debtor suffers an 
injustice and business is retarded because invest- 
ments become unprofitable. Senator Sherman said 
in 1869, in speaking of the effect of a contracting 
currency : "To every person except a capitalist out 
of debt, or a salaried officer or annuitant, it is a 
period of loss, danger, lassitude of trade, fall of 
wages, suspension of enterprise, bankruptcy, and 
disaster, ' ' 

Senator Sherman thus described with great ac- 
curacy the condition of the commercial world to- 
dav. The demonetization of silver and the increas- 



MONET 197 

ing strain upon gold are making all business un- 
profitable, except the business of money-loaning. 

The great thing to be desired is a stable currency, 
that is, a dollar whose purchasing power remains 
the same through long periods of time. The nations 
of the world will rise up and call him blessed who 
can devise an honest dollar — a dollar unchangeable 
in its purchasing power. To secure the desired sta- 
bility in the value of the monetary unit the volume 
of money must increase or decrease exactly as the 
demand for money increases or decreases, and in the 
same proportion. Laveleye says: "It is desirable 
that the value of money should remain as stable as 
possible, and this will be the case so long as its 
quantity increases in the same proportion as the 
number of exchanges for which cash is required. ' ' 

In a speech made in the House of Representatives 
August 16, 1893, I had the honor to submit some 
remarks on the relative merits of monometalism and 
bimetalism, and I shall at this time only compare 
the advantages of metalic and nonmetalic money. 
Many dwell upon the term "intrinsic value," as if 
that gave metalic money its great superiority over 
paper money, forgetting that a large part of the 
value of gold and silver is conferred upon those 
metals by the legislation which makes them money. 

If the nations of the world, by agreement, should 
substitute some other kind of money for gold and 
silver, the value of both, as measured by other kinds 
of property, would fall. Gold has been increased 
in value by the increased demand caused by legisla- 
tive action. The chief advantage of metalic money 
lies in the fact that its total amount is so large, 



198 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

compared with the annual supply available for coin- 
age, that the fluctuation of the unit is reduced to a 
minimum. Prof. Perry very happily expresses this 
advantage when he says : 

"The amount of gold and silver in circulation in the com- 
mercial world, to say nothing of the quantity so easily 
brought into circulation from the reservoir of plate, is so 
vast that it receives the annual contributions from the 
mines much as the ocean receives the waters of the rivers, 
without sensible increase of its volume, and parts with the 
annual loss by detrition and shipwreck as the sea yields its 
waters to evaporation, without sensible diminution of its 
volume. The yearly supply and the yearly waste are small 
in comparison with the accumulations of ages ; and, there- 
fore, the relations of the whole mass to the uses of the 
world, and the purchasing power of any given portion re- 
main comparatively steady." 

The total amount of gold and silver coin which 
could be added annually to the world's metalic 
money cannot reach $200,000,000, and may not ex- 
ceed a hundred and fifty millions. This is only 
from 2 to 2^/^ per cent, of the present volume of 
metalic money. As this represents the total annual 
increase, it is evident that the variation in the in- 
crease from year to year is exceedingly small. 

Since this annual increase, being derived from an 
almost countless number of sources, is independent 
of human caprice, and cannot be profitably regu- 
lated by any combination, metalic money has been 
accepted by the commercial world as the best money, 
because least liable to fluctuation. But even metalic 
money is not absolutely stable and has at times 
undergone violent changes. Prof. Perry estimates 
that after the discovery of the silver mines of Potosi, 
about the middle of the sixteenth century, silver fell 



MONEY 199 

in purchasing power to 25 per cent, of its former 
value, and Prof. Jevons is quoted as saying that the 
purchasing power of gold fell 15 per cent, after the 
California discoveries. 

There has been a large increase in the value of 
gold during the last twenty years, but it is due to 
the increased demand for it rather than to a de- 
creased production. Some have estimated that the 
value of the uncoined gold and silver in the world 
exceeds the value of the coined. If that be true, 
legislation might cause great fluctuation in the 
value of metalic money. If, for instance, all the 
nations should agree to compel the coinage of all 
gold and silver now held as merchandise and to 
prevent the future use of gold and silver, except 
for coinage, the result would be an enormous in- 
crease in the volume of metalic money and a fall 
in the purchasing power of each dollar. 

So legislation, encouraging the greater use of 
gold and silver in the arts, or legislation limiting 
the amount of either metal coined, would tend to 
lessen the volume and to increase the purchasing 
power of each dollar. It is worthy of note that 
those who have most vigorously defended the me- 
talic theory of money on the ground that its volume 
is independent of human control have been the first 
to attempt control when the dollar began to fall in 
value. Three nations demonetized gold after the 
discoveries of 1849, in order to prevent the gold 
dollar from becoming "cheap," and several nations 
demonetized silver after 1872, for fear it would be- 
come "cheap." 

Every law which affects the total amount of gold 



200 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

and silver money affects the value of each dollar of 
that money. Some desire to abandon gold and sil- 
ver as money entirely, but I have not been able to 
bring myself to this conclusion. It is true that men 
have at times tried to corner the supply of metalic 
money, and have used it to injure and oppress their 
fellows, but all of the blessings of life can be abused 
and turned to our injury. Before abandoning these 
metals, peculiarly fitted for money, let us endeavor 
by legislation to prevent the misuse of them. 

No language is too strong to describe the guilt 
of those who are engaged in the conspiracy to re- 
duce the volume of metalic money by the destruc- 
tion of silver as standard money. The Creator, as 
infinite in love as in power, has supplied legitimate 
means for the gratification of every human need. 
When He implanted in man's body the desire for 
food He scattered over the face of the earth an 
abundance with which to satisfy his hunger ; when 
He gave him thirst He filled the ground with veins 
of water and planted living springs along the hill- 
sides; when He permitted weariness to creep over 
the limbs of the toiler He sent sleep, "Tired na- 
ture 's sweet restorer, ' ' to renew his strength ; when 
He gave to man a mind capable of development and 
filled it with a yearning for knowledge He placed 
within his reach the means of instruction and sur- 
rounded him with opportunities for study; and 
when He made man a social being, fitted him for 
companionship with his fellows, and fashioned the 
channels of trade. He stored away in the mountains 
the gold and silver needed for the world 's currency. 

I may be in error, but in my humble judgment 



MONEY 201 

he who would rob man of his necessary food, or 
pollute the springs at which he quenches his thirst, 
or steal away from him his accustomed rest, or 
condemn his mind to the gloomy night of ignorance, 
is no more an enemy of his race than the man who, 
deaf to the entreaties of the poor and blind to the 
suffering he would cause, seeks to destroy one of 
the money metals given by the Almighty to supply 
the needs of commerce. 

I have on a former occasion referred to the lan- 
guage used by Secretary Carlisle in 1878, then a 
Representative in Congress, to describe the effect of 
the annihilation of silver. I quote his words again, 
because they present the danger which confronts us 
in words so clear, so forcible, and so emphatic that 
nothing can be added to them. In speaking of the 
* ^ conspiracy " to destroy ''from three-sevenths to 
one-half of the metalic money of the world," he 
sa^^s : ^ ' The consummation of such a scheme would 
ultimately entail more misery upon the human race 
than all the wars, pestilences, and famines that ever 
occurred in the history of the world. ' ' 

Do we appreciate what that means? Do we 
realize what is to follow the consummation of that 
"conspiracy," the perpetration of that ''crime?" 
Can we conceive the force, the full purport, the 
meaning of those words ? Can we call up before the 
mind's eye every battlefield of the past? Can we 
review that history which, from the time when Cain 
killed Abel until now, has been little more than a 
record of warfare ? Can we look upon the innumer- 
able number slain by javelin and spear and sword 
and shot and shell ? Can we see in imagination the 

1 17 



202 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

faces of the dead, disfigured by pain and anguish? 
Can we think, too, of those made husbandless and 
fatherless by their death? Can we measure the 
tears shed in the service of Mars? Can we add to 
those who fell in battle and who were wounded 
there, all those who have succumbed to pestilence? 
Aye, can we crowd into our thoughts, not only the 
pestilence w^hich have from time to time scourged 
the fair earth, but also add to them the famines 
which have at times swept thousands and tens of 
thousands into the grave ? Can we collect and com- 
prehend all the misery, and all the suffering, and all 
the sorrow, that these three dread destroyers have 
wrought? And when we have put them all into 
one group, when we have prest them all together, 
can we imagine that the consummation of that 
** crime" means more of misery than all combined? 

It is because we measure, to some extent, because 
"we appreciate, at least in part, the misery that is 
to follow, that we have felt it our duty as well as 
our privilege — our duty to ourselves, our duty to 
our families, our duty to our country, our duty to 
our God — to cry out against the consummation of 
that conspiracy ! And we do it, not to help the sil- 
ver miners — we do it for Humanity ! 

So long as there is a sufficient supply of metalic 
money to meet the needs of commerce a reliance 
upon that supply gives to the people protection 
against those variations in the value of the mone- 
tary unit which might be caused by legislative ac- 
tion. The inconvenience of handling the coin itself 
can be avoided by the use of certificates which, since 
they merely replace an equal amount of coin, do not 



MONEY 203 

affect the volume of the currency. But the accepta- 
bility of metalic money as the only standard money 
depends upon its sufficiency to supply an adequate 
currency. 

Some, who are ready to use the power of the Gov- 
ernment to limit the supply of money, in order to 
prevent injustice to the creditor, are slow to admit 
the right of the Government to increase the cur- 
rency when necessary to prevent injustice to the 
debtor. I denounce that cruel interpretation of 
governmental power which would grant the author- 
ity to starve, but would withhold the authority to 
feed our people — which would permit a contraction 
of our currency, even to the destruction of all pros- 
perity, but would prohibit the expansion of our cur- 
rency to keep pace with the growing needs of a 
growing nation! 

Excluding the certificate, which is not really an 
addition to the currency, but rather a substitution 
of one form of money for another, there are two 
kinds of paper money, namely, redeemable and irre- 
deemable paper. Redeemable paper has two ad- 
vantages of special importance. It conforms to the 
prejudice of mankind in favor of metalic money, 
and retains their confidence in the money as a me- 
dium of exchange. 

Custom is a very potent factor to be taken into 
consideration, for the average man is conservative 
and accepts innovations with great reluctance. The 
second advantage inherent in redeemable paper is 
that, being related in quantity to the volume of 
metalic money, its amount is not quite so dependent 
upon caprice, and therefore the value of the mone- 



204 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

tary unit is likely to remain more stable. Just to 
what extent general prices are influenced by an 
issue of redeemable money it is difficult to deter- 
mine. That such a dollar is not equal in its effect 
upon prices to an irredeemable or metalic dollar is 
evident, for some coin must be held to insure prompt 
redemption, and the amount so held is an offset to 
an equal amount of redeemable paper outstanding. 

The possible demand for additional coin at any 
time to pay such notes on demand, to an indefinite 
extent, reduces the value of such notes as an addi- 
tion to the currency. There can be no question that 
the influence of a given amount of redeemable paper 
on the volume of the currency will increase as the 
probability of presentation for redemption de- 
creases. And there can be no doubt that a paper 
money which is a full legal tender for all debts, 
public and private, being less liable to return for 
redemption, will, dollar for dollar, affect the volume 
of the currency more than non-legal tender paper. 

An irredeemable paper currency, properly lim- 
ited, will affect the volume of the currency, and 
therefore prices, to the same extent as a like addi- 
tion of metalic money. That a government can issue 
and maintain an irredeemable paper currency, when 
strictly limited in volume, is not open to contro- 
versy. John Stuart Mill, in his "Principles of Po- 
litical Economy," both admits the possibility of 
maintaining an irredeemable currency, and forcibly 
points out the dangers which beset such a monetary 
system. He says : 

"In, the case supposed, the functions of money are per- 
formed by a thing which derives its power of performing 



MONEY 205 

them solely from convention, but convention is quite suffi- 
cient to confer the power, since nothing more is needful to 
make a person accept anything as money and even at any 
arbitrary value, than the persuasion that it will be takeu 
from him on the same terms by others. 

iti ^ ^ --^ * !¥ 

"After experience had shown that pieces of paper of no 
intrinsic value, by merely bearing upon them the written 
profession of being equivalent to a certain number of francs, 
dollars, or pounds^ could be made to circulate as such, and 
to produce all the benefit to the issuers which could have 
been produced by the coin which they purported to repre- 
sent, governments began to think that it would be a happy 
device if they could appropriate to themselves this benefit, 
free from the condition to which individuals issuing such 
paper money substitutes for money were subject, of giving, 
when required, for the sign, the thing signified. 

H: * * * * * 

"Such a power, in whomsoever vested, is an intolerable 
evil. All variations in the value of the circulating medium 
are mischievous ; they disturb existing contracts and expect- 
ations, and the liability to such changes renders every pe- 
cuniary engagement of long date entirely precarious. The 
person who buys for himself, or gives to another, an an- 
nuity of £100, does not know whether it will be equivalent to 
£200 or to £50 a few years hence. 

"Great as this evil would be if it depended only on acci- 
dent, it is still greater when placed at the arbitrary disposal 
of an individual, or a body of individuals, who may have any 
kind or degree of interest to be served by an artificial fluc- 
tuation in fortunes, and who have at any rate a strong in- 
terest in issuing as much as possible, each issue being in 
itself a source of profit. Not to add that the issuers may 
have, and in the case of a government paper always have, 
d. direct interest in lowering the value of the currency be- 
cause it is the medium in which their own debts are to be 
computed." 

Irredeemable currency can only be issued by the 
Government. "When the volume, and therefore the 
value, of money is determined entirely by the legis- 
lature, the value of all property becomes subject to 
an act of Congress, and debts increase or decrease 
in amount according to the latest legislative decree. 



206 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

A legislative body has two difficulties to contend 
with in wisely fixing the volume of the currency — 
first, the lack of knowledge as to the amount of 
money needed, and, second, the conflicting interests 
of creditor and debtor forces. We must assume 
that Congress is composed of men of average intelli- 
gence and average honesty. It might be difficult to 
prove more, and to admit less woul'd cast a reflec- 
tion upon their constituents. But men of average 
intelligence will widely differ as to the amount of 
money needed now^ and as to the necessary annual 
increase or decrease. This difference of opinion will 
arise partly because the representatives look at the 
subject from different standpoints, and partly be- 
cause of the great number of elements which must 
be considered. Population is a factor, for it will 
require more money for one hundred persons than 
for ten to transact the same business and make the 
same number of exchanges. The density of popula- 
tion is a factor, for it will require more money per 
capita, other things being equal, in a sparsely set- 
tled than in a thickly populated country. 

The banking facilities and facilities for exchange 
must be considered, altho we must not conclude that 
every check or draft lessens pro tanto the amount 
of money needed. We must also calculate the dif- 
ference between the need for money in a nation 
whose resources are exhausted and the need for 
money in a nation which is progressing and devel- 
oping. These are suggested as some, not all, of the 
factors to be considered in determining the amount 
of money needed at a given time and the amount to 



MONEY 207 

be supplied or withdrawn annually in order to make 
the dollar stable in its purchasing power. 

It is no reflection on the intelligence of the legis- 
lative body to say that it might find it very difficult 
to adjust with equity the volume of the currency 
to the varj^ng needs of the people. The second dif- 
ficulty is, perhaps, still greater. In the long run 
the representative will correctly reflect the opinions 
and interests of his constituents, or, at least, of that 
portion of his constituency which controls public 
sentiment. As different portions of our country 
have different interests we could expect a continual 
struggle with varying success between those who 
favor more and those who favor less money. This 
conflict forces itself upon us, to some extent, even 
under present conditions. 

Some assert now that our financial depression is 
due to a flood of money, v\^hile others assert that it 
is due to a drought of money. The creditor, through 
his representative, will view with composure a de- 
crease in the currency, because it will benefit him, 
but he will contend with heroic fortitude against 
any "wild and dangerous inflation of the cur- 
rency." The debtor, on. the other hand, through 
his representative, will regard as providential any 
increase of the currency which will lighten his debt, 
but will resist as a great injustice any attempt to 
make money dearer by law. 

. A constitutional regulation would be more perma- 
nent, but it would make it difficult to correct a mis- 
take. AVhen I remember how the creditor has over- 
reached the debtor in the financial legislation of the 
last thirty years; when I remember how great mon- 



20S BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

eyed interests, acting as a unit, have secured legis- 
lation against the unorganized masses, I hesitate to 
see any legislative body exercise the power to issue 
irredeemable paper and fix the volume thereof. In 
my judgment, the Government will not be com- 
pelled to resort to this money system, unless the 
pretended friends of a ''sound currency" make it 
necessary by the complete demonetization of .silver 
as a standard money. We may rest assured, how- 
ever, that the people in a free government always 
reserve the right of self-preservation, and will exer- 
cise the power to provide for their own welfare. 

Whenever the time comes, therefore, if it ever 
does, that the people must choose between a con- 
stantly appreciating metalic money and an irre- 
deemable paper money which gives a hope of relief, 
they will choose the latter system, with all its de- 
fects and dangers. The choice may be avoided for 
the present by the full and immediate restoration 
of silver to its place as a coordinate part of the 
metalic money of the world. Later, if that is not 
sufficient to secure stability in the monetary unit, 
it may be wise to prevent the use of gold and silver 
for any purpose excepting coinage. 

Redeemable paper money may be issued by the 
General Government or by private persons or cor- 
porations. If States could emit bills of credit and 
make them good, either by coin redemption or by 
investing them with legal tender qualities, we might 
be called upon to choose between notes issued by the 
States and notes issued by the General Government ; 
but the Constitution of the United States expressly 
prohibits States from issuing bills of credit and 



MONEY 209 

from making anything but gold and silver a legal 
tender, while it permits the General Government 
to issue its notes and make them a legal tender. 

If we have redeemable paper, then, it must be 
issued by the General Government or by private 
authority under the direction of Congress or the 
State legislatures. It may be worth while to sub- 
mit an authority on the power of the General Gov- 
ernment to issue paper money and to make it a 
legal tender for debt. An opinion was rendered by 
the Supreme Court of the United States at the 
October term, 1883 (110 U. S. Rep., 421), in what 
is known as the Legal Tender Case, which settles 
this question in so far as it can be settled by the 
courts. The opinion delivered by Justice Gray was 
concurred in by eight of the nine judges, and covers 
every phase of the case. I quote the following ex- 
tracts from the opinion : 

"It appears to us to follow, as a logical and necessary 
consequence, that Congress has the power to issue the obli- 
gations of the United States in such form and to impress 
upon them such qualities as currency for the purchase of 
merchandise and payment of debts as accord with the usage 
of sovereign gOTernments. The power, as incident to the 
power of borrowing money and issuing bills or notes of the 
Government for money borrowed, of impressing upon those 
bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the 
payment of private debts, was a power universally under- 
stood to belong to sovereignty, in Europe and America, at 
the time of the framing and adoption of the Constitution of 
the United States. . . . The power of issuing bills of credit 
and making them, at the discretion of the legislature, a 
tender in payment of private debts, had long been exercised 
in this country by the several colonies and States ; and 
during the Revolutionary war the States, upon the recom- 
mendation of the Congress of the Confederation, had made 
the bills issued by Congress a legal tender. . . . 

"The exercise of this power, not being prohibited to Con- 



210 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

gress by the Constitution, it is included in the power ex- 
pressly granted to borrow money on a credit of the United 
States. . . . Under the power to borrow money on the credit 
of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the 
money borrowed, its iK)wer to define the quality and force 
of those notes as currency, is as broad as the like power 
over a metalic currency under the power to coin money and 
to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken 
together. Congress is authorized to establish a national cur- 
renc.v, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency 
lawful money for all purposes as regards the National Gov- 
ernment or private individuals. The power of making the 
notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of 
private debts, being included in the power to borrow money 
and to provide a national currency, is not defeated or re- 
stricted by the fact that its exercise may affect the value of 
private contracts. . . . 

"Such being our conclusion in matter of law, the question 
whether at any particular time, in war or in peace, the 
exigency is such, by reason of unusual and pressing demands 
on the resources of the Government, or of the inadequacy 
of the supply of gold and silver coin to furnish the currency 
needed for the uses of the Government and the people, that 
it is, as a matter of fact, wise and expedient to resort to 
this means, is a political question, to be determined by Con- 
gress when the question of exigency arises, and not a judi- 
cial question to be afterwards passed on by the courts." 

John C. Calhoun recognized the right of the Gov- 
ernment to issue paper money when he said in 1816 : 

"The right of making money, an attribute of sovereign 
power, a sacred and important right, was exercised by 269 
banks, scattered over every part of the United States, not 
responsible to any power whatever for their issues of paper." 

Thomas Jefferson, the Modern Lawgiver, who, 
from his mountain home, as from a second Sinai, 
brought down the Truth to his followers, not graven 
upon stone but written in the hearts of men, recog- 
nized both the right and the advantage of Govern- 
ment paper. In a letter written from Monticello, 
June 24, 1813, to John W. Epps, he said : 



MONEY 211 

"This is equivalent to borrowiiiff that !?nm. and yet the 
vendor, receiving payment in a medium as effectual as coin 
for his purchases or payments, has no claim to interest. 
And so the nation may continue to issue its bills as far as 
its wants require and the limits of the circulation will ad- 
mit. . . . But this, the only resource which the Govern- 
ment could command with certainty, the States have unfor- 
tunately fooled away, nay, corruptly alienated to swindlers 
and shavers, under the cover of private banks. . . . The 
States should be applied to, to transfer the right of 
issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, in per- 
petuum, if possible, but during the war at least, with a sav- 
ing of charter rights." 

Six years later, in a letter written to Mr. Rives, 
November 28, 1819, Jefferson went even farther, 
and said : 

"Interdict forever, to both the State and National Gov- 
ernments the power of establishing any paper banks, for 
without this interdiction we shall have the same ebbs and 
flows of medium and the same revolutions of property to go 
through every twenty or thirty years." 

Assuming, then, that the United States can issue 
paper money and make it a legal tender, and that 
no other power can issue legal tender money; as- 
suming that Congress can establish national banks 
and authorize them to issue paper redeemable in 
lawful money ; and assuming that the States, unless 
prevented by some direct prohibition, or by some 
indirect means like the 10 per cent, tax, can author- 
ize banks to issue paper redeemable in lawful money, 
let us consider which kind of paper money should 
be issued when paper money is needed. Admitting, 
in other words, the right to use various kinds of 
paper money, which kind is best ? My investigation 
has led me to the conclusion that the General Gov- 
ernment not only has the right to issue all needed 



i 



212 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

paper money, but, since it alone can issue legal ten- 
der money, is in duty bound to provide a currency 
sufficient for the needs of commerce. 

Not only should the General Government supply 
all needed paper money, but it should make all 
money — that is, its gold, silver, and paper — a full 
legal tender for all debts, public and private, and 
should not permit the making of any contract here- 
after for a particular kind of money. That the 
G overnment has a right to prohibit special contracts 
ill money cannot be doubted. If it has a right to 
make any kind of monej^ a legal tender, it has a 
right to prevent any citizen from demonetizing that 
money by contract. Our Supreme Court has held 
ihat the United States notes were a legal tender for 
debts contracted previously when only gold and 
silver were considered standard money. 

The French courts have held that the notes of the 
Bank of France cannot be refused as payment, even 
when there is a prior special contract. The fact 
that the coinage laws of 1878 and 1890 contained an 
exception would indicate that, without such an ex- 
ception, it would be unlawful to contract for a par- 
ticular kind of money even without an exprest pro- 
hibition, for, why should the law contain the words 
* ' except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the 
contract," if a citizen could without that exprest 
permission discriminate by contract in favor of, or 
against, a particular kind of money? 

There are some who deny that the Government 
should enact any legal tender law whatever. Those 
who hold to this opinion believe that everything 
should be left to contract. They scrupulously guard 



MONEY 213 

what they call 'Hhe right of private contract''; but 
there can be no freedom of contract unless the par- 
ties stand upon an equal footing. Where one party 
is under duress it is not freedom of contract, but 
freedom to extort. The debtor and the creditor do 
not necessarily stand on the same plane. It is as 
true now as it was w^hen the wise man declared it, 
that ''the borrower is a servant to the lender," and 
is not at all times able to contract on equal terms 
with the man from whom he obtains the money. 
Jefferson, in speaking of the tendency of men to fol- 
low their selfish instincts and to take advantage of 
their fellows, once said: 

"Such being our conclusion in matter of law, the question 
whether at any particular tirte, in war or in peace, the 
the gfovernments of Europe, and to the general prey of the 
rich on the poor." 

It was Jefferson also who declared that one of the 
important duties of government is " to restrain men 
from injuring one another. ' ' I was riding through 
Iowa a few weeks ago, when I noticed some hogs de- 
stroying the sod in a pasture. It took me back to 
the days when I lived upon a farm, and I recalled 
the means by which we prevented hogs from rooting. 

Rings were put in their noses, not to prevent their 
eating, because we wanted them to get fat, but in 
order that they might not destroy more than they 
were worth while they were getting fat. And, as I 
was thinking of this restraint placed upon the hogs, 
it occurred to me that the Government is often com- 
pelled to imitate the farmer, and to put rings in 
the noses of hogs. When restrictions are placed up- 
on the dealings of man with man, the Government 



214 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

is simply putting a ring in the nose of some human 
hog, not to prevent him from taking advantage of 
his energy, his industry, or his ability, but to pre- 
vent him from interfering with the equal rights of 
others. 

I do not mean to use the word hog in an offensive 
sense, but simply to describe those selfish instincts 
which we all possess, and which, unless properly 
curbed, do harm to others. We have no more right 
to use a fortune as a means of oppression than we 
have to use a club, and w^hen we speak of a man's 
right to enjoy that which his ability can procure 
we do not mean to justify the pickpocket, the bur- 
glar, or the highwayman in the exercise of his pe- 
culiar talents. It is only by the exercise of a most 
watchful restraint that government can secure to 
the citizen the right to life and liberty, and also to 
the pursuit of happiness, with some prospect of 
overtaking it. 

All legal tender laws are intended to protect the 
debtor from unreasonable demands. Non-legal ten- 
der money multiplies the opportunities of the 
sharper, and places a weapon in the hands of ava- 
rice. The same public policy which justifies a legal 
tender law and a law limiting the rate of interest 
justifies a law preventing special contracts for a 
particular kind of money. In fact, it is much more 
important to prevent such contracts than it is to 
regulate the rate of interest, for only the debtor 
and creditor may be concerned in the rate of inter- 
est, while speculation in a particular kind of money 
may affect the whole community. 

The tendency of special contracts is to create a 



MONEY ' 215 

demand for a particular kind of money, and the de- 
mand, if great enough, will raise that kind of money 
to a premium. Thus such contracts may destroy 
the parity between various kinds of money, and the 
creditor then takes advantage of his own wrong by 
collecting a dollar appreciated in part by his own 
act. If these contracts are prohibited no hardship 
is brought to the creditor, for the money which he 
receives will be as useful to him as it was to the 
debtor. The great mass of the people are so sit- 
uated that they can never profit by the right to 
contract for a particular kind of money, but are 
always in danger of loss from it. Is it not time 
to declare by law that that money which the Gov- 
ernment makes good for the ninety-nine common 
people is good enough for the one uncommon per- 
son who wants to obtain an advantage by a special 
contract ? 

But I must return to the comparison between 
Government monej" and bank notes. I have already 
mentioned the advantage of Government paper over 
bank paper, arising from the fact that the former 
can be invested with legal tender qualities. One of 
the great objections to bank notes is that they can 
only be secured through legislation which violates 
the Democratic principle of "equality before the 
law." The language used by Andrew Jackson, in 
the veto message sent to Congress July 10, 1832, is 
as applicable to State banks as to national banks, 
and as applicable to the banks of our times as to 
the banks of his day. The truth, so forcibly ex- 
pressed by the hero of New Orleans, like all great 
truths, lives through all generations, and I com- 



216 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

mend it to those who insist that banks of issue are 
Democratic institutions. Jackson said: 

"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often 
bend the acts of Government to their selfish purposes. Dis- 
tinctions in society will alv»'ays exist under every just gov- 
ernment. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth 
cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full en- 
joyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior 
industry, economy, and virtue every man is equally entitled 
to protection by law. But when the laws undertake to add 
to those natural and just advantages artificial distinctions 
— to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges — to 
make the rich richer and the potent more powerful — the 
humble members of society, the farmers, mechanics, and the 
laborers, who have neither the time nor the means of secur- 
ing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of 
the injustice of their government. 

"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils 
exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal 
protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors 
alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it 
would be an unqualified blessing. 

* * * * 4E * 

"Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted 
at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair 
equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to 
bestow on the stockholders of the existing banks must come 
directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American 
people." 

No person or corporation has a natural right to 
issue money. It is "an attribute of sovereignty," 
and the banks can no more demand as a right the 
power to supply a currency for the people than 
they can demand the right to enact laws for the 
general government of the people. I trust I shall 
not offend any one when I iisy that banks are not 
eleemosynary or philanthropic institutions. They 
have their place in society and, when they conduct 
themselves properly, contribute to the welfare of 



MONEY 217 

society just as every good citizen contributes to 
the welfare of society by his services. The business 
of loaning and discounting is not necessarily con- 
nected with issuing money, and if the banks join 
to their legitimate business the issue of paper which 
is to pass as money we may rest assured that they 
will do it for the profit there is in it. 

National banks do not make as much now as they 
did during the war, but they are still able to realize 
on the money actually invested in circulating paper 
more than the average business man can expect to 
make on invested capital. The official reports usual- 
ly spread the profits of a national bank over its en- 
tire business capital, and thus make it appear that 
the profit on circulation is less than it really is. 
Take, for instance, a national bank which desires 
to issue currency. It can now buy 2 per cent, bonds 
at about par. If the bank invests $100,000 in bonds 
it can deposit them with the Comptroller and re- 
ceive $90,000 in bank notes. Four thousand and 
five hundred dollars will be held back as a reserve, 
but as this sum can be counted by the bank as a 
part of its necessary reserve, it is the same as if it 
was in its vaults. 

The $90,000 received in bank notes replaces so 
much of the capital expended for the purchase of 
bonds, so that the amount actually invested in cir- 
culating notes is $10,000. On that sum the bank 
makes about 10 per cent., for it receives $2,000 in- 
terest and pays out $900 as a tax on circulation and 
about $100 (estimated) for the expense of taking 
out currency. We need not investigate the profit 

made on the bank's capital, because the $90,000 re- 
us 



218 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

eeived in bank notes is as good as ninety thousand 
of the one hundred thousand paid for bonds. 

To calculate the actual profit made by the issue 
of national bank notes we need to know only the 
difference between the notes received and the 
amount paid for the bonds. When that is known, 
we can find the rate of profit by subtracting the 
expenses of the circulation (including tax) from the 
interest on the bonds. Some have proposed, during 
this debate, to allow the banks to issue notes to the 
full face of the bonds instead of to 90 per cent, of 
the face, and have also proposed to take off the 1 per 
cent, tax on circulation. If these two changes are 
made, the rate of profit will be largely increased, 
because there will be no money actually invested in 
the 2 per cent, bonds, unless the bonds go to a pre- 
mium, and, the 1 per cent, on circulation being re- 
moved, the interest on the bonds will be almost 
clear profit. ' 

When the national banks were first organized 
there was still more profit in the circulation. When, 
for instance, gold was at 200 per cent., a bank could 
borrow $50,000 in gold and with it purchase $100,- 
000 in greenbacks. W^ith $100,000 in greenbacks it 
could buy $100,000 worth of 6 per cent, bonds, and 
on these bonds could secure $90,000 in bank notes. 
With the $90,000 in bank notes it could buy $45,000 
worth of gold and repay all but $5,000 of the gold 
first borrowed. On its investment of $5,000 in gold 
— for that would be the amount really invested — it 
would draw interest in gold to the amount of $6,000 
on the bonds. 

After deducting the tax on circulation and the 



MONEY 219 

expense of procuring circulation the bank would 
make in the transaction described nearly 100 per 
cent, on the money actually invested. Thus did 
patriotism brings its just (?) recompense to those 
who, as the financiers say, **eame to the nation's 
rescue in the hour of peril." Why should the law 
thus discriminate between citizens? If a farmer 
owns a Government bond, he can only draw interest 
on the bond. If a bank holds the bond, it can not 
only draw interest on it, but can use nearly all of 
the money called for by the bond besides. The 
farmer ' ' can either eat his cake or keep it, ' ' but the 
banker is allowed to both *'eat his cake and 
keep it.'' 

Some one may say, in answer to this, that the 
farmer can go into the banking business if he likes, 
but that is no justification for class legislation. 
Shall we vote a bounty of $1,000 a year to every 
lawyer, and justify it by the assertion that the legal 
profession is open to every one? Shall we vote a 
bounty of $1,000 a year to every farmer, and justify 
it on the ground that every person can become a 
farmer? The national bank note is good only be- 
cause the Government is behind it. The bank note 
is redeemable in a greenback, and during the war 
greenbacks and bank notes circulated together. If 
the Government wants to issue notes through the 
banks, \yhy does it not withhold the interest on the 
bonds so long as the banks use the money. 

A State bank circulation is open to the same ob- 
jection, that is, that the Government singles out 
some person or class of persons and grants to them 
a special and valuable privilege denied to others. 



220 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

If a State bank was required to deposit with the 
State authorities an amount of money equal to the 
currency issued, there would be no addition to the 
circulation and no profit to the bank. What the 
State bank wants is the power to issue money, either 
on its credit or on security deposited. If the bank 
issues money on its credit it is permitted to create 
value for its own advantage ; if it issues money on 
deposited security it enjoys a privilege similar to 
that now given to the national bank, that is, it re- 
ceives the interest on securities, and at the same 
time uses a part of the money invested in the se- 
curities, and at the same time uses a part of the 
money invested in the securities. 

One plan proposed for the regulation of State 
banks provides that the bank may issue 150 per cent, 
on its capital stock by holding one-half of its capi- 
tal to redeem the notes and investing the other half 
in certain kinds of bonds. The bank, under such a 
law, if its capital stock amounted to $100,000, would 
be able to issue $150,000. Fifty thousand of the 
money issued would be needed to offset the fifty 
thousand held for redemption, and another fifty 
thousand would reimburse the bank for the amount 
invested in bonds. This would square the bank for 
its investment, and it would receive as a considera- 
tion for its services the use of the remaining fifty 
thousand to loan and the interest on the fifty thou- 
sand dollars worth of bonds deposited for security. 
"Why should the bank be given this advantage over 
the ordinary citizen? There is no magical means 
by which the laborer can increase the capital which 
he has saved from his toil. If he invests his earn- 



MONEY 221 

ings in State or municipal bonds, he must content 
himself with the interest only. 

Why is he not as much entitled to favorable con- 
sideration as the citizen who goes into the banking 
business ? And, again, why should the Government 
discriminate between different kinds of property? 
If a bondholder can, by going into a bank, use both 
the interest on the bond and the money for which it 
calls, why not let the landowner put up his land as 
a security for money, and at the same time draw a 
profit from its cultivation ? 

The plan, proposed by some, of issuing money on 
land at a low rate of interest, is simply an applica- 
tion of the national bank and state bank principle 
to land instead of bonds. 

The subtreasury plan is nothing but the applica- 
tion of the same principle to personal property. If 
it is just to extend this special privilege to the na- 
tional banker who holds Government bonds and to 
the State banker who holds State and municipal 
bonds, why is it not just to extend it to those who 
hold real and personal property? The difference 
between bonds and other kinds of property is that 
the other kinds of property make the bonds val- 
uable, while too many bonds will make all other 
kinds of property worthless. Bonds, it is true, find 
a readier sale and are quoted daily in the market, 
but other forms of property have value just as real. 

The difference between loaning on bonds and 
loaning on property is not a difference in principle, 
but a difference in the character of the security. 
If it is safe to issue on bonds at par, or up to 90 
per cent, of their face, it would certainly be safe to 



222 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

issue on other kinds of property up to 50 per cent, 
or 25 per cent, or at least to 10 per cent, of their 
market value. I make this comparison between the 
national banking principle and the subtreasury 
idea, not to justify the policy of issuing money on 
land or personal property — for I think it is better to 
eradicate a vicious principle than to extend its ap- 
plication — but to show that the principle which our 
financiers denounce as wild and visionary when pro- 
posed by the farmers is the same principle which 
our bondholders have advocated wdth great profit 
to themselves. 

If it is said that we must institute banks of issue 
in order to put money into circulation, I answer 
that there is a better way. The issue of money by 
the Government directly to the people gives us a 
safer money and saves to the people as a whole the 
profit arising from its issue. When a bank issues 
money you must pay the market rate of interest in 
order to get it, but w^hen the Government issues 
money the people save the interest, if the money is 
afterward called in, and they save the principal also 
if the money is kept in circulation. Numerous plans 
have been suggested for putting this money into 
circulation. Some have an idea that a Government 
issue can only be put forth by loaning it to the 
people, either directly or through the agency of 
banks. 

There are, in my judgment, other and better 
ways. If a limited amount is issued, and of course 
the amount must be strictly limited, and it is loaned 
to the people, partiality will be shown in its distri- 



MONEY 223 

bution, for only a few, relatively speaking, can be 
accommodated. 

But aside from the danger of placing so great a 
power in the hands of a dominant party, there are 
plans more just and equitable than that of loaning. 
The money can be used to pay the expenses of the 
Government, as the greenbacks now in circulation 
were issued to pay the expenses of war. If Con- 
gress decides to increase the currency a certain 
amount annually, say for illustration fifty millions 
a 3"ear, it can reduce the tax levy to that extent and 
the people will receive the benefit of the issue just 
in proportion as they pay taxes, for they will save 
to that extent the taxes which they would otherwise 
pay. 

Perhaps our well-to-do friends who object to the 
income tax, and also oppose an increase in the vol- 
ume of currency, would be willing to compromise on 
an issue of money to take the place of a part of the 
income tax. The tariff on some of the necessaries 
of life might be reduced and the deficit made up 
by an issue of money. Perhaps the beneficiaries of 
the tariff, and probably the sugar trust, would ob- 
ject, because they want a tariff — not for the revenue 
which it brings to the Government, but for the rev- 
enue which it brings to them. I am indulging the 
hope, however, that we may in the course of time 
reach a point in legislative independence when the 
general public will be able to pass laws for the gen- 
eral good without making a treaty with the aggre- 
gations of capital which infest Washington during 
the sessions of Congress. 



224 BEYAN'S SPEECHES 

If the people do not desire to reduce taxation, 
Government paper can be issued to pay for special 
improvements which Congress may deem desirable. 
Harbors can be deepened and rivers can be im- 
proved in this way. I have introduced a bill, now 
before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, which provides for the issue of United 
States notes, like those authorized in 1862 (now 
called greenbacks) to an amount not exceeding sev- 
enty millions, to pay for the construction of the 
Nicaragua Canal. This issue would probably in- 
crease the currency at a rate of about ten millions 
a year for seven years. 

The canal is of very great military and commer- 
cial importance to the United States, and if the Gov- 
ernment is going to assist in the building, is it not 
far better to issue money for the purpose than to 
borrow money on bonds? I would have preferred 
to have the money so issued a full legal tender for 
all debts, public and private, even when hereafter 
contracted against, but I provided in the bill for 
notes identical with the greenbacks in order to pre- 
vent the discussion of any collateral questions, and 
to bring a vote on the naked issue, ''money or 
bonds. ' ' I have mentioned this one canal, but there 
are other works of national importance. If we find 
that the currency needs to be increased and do not 
desire to reduce taxation, we can, by the issue of a 
few millions a year, construct a ship canal from 
Buffalo to the Hudson River, and thus give to the 
grain of the Northwest ocean rates from Chicago 
and Duluth to Liverpool, not to speak of the mili- 
tary advantages of such a canal. 



MONET 225 

We mi^ht by the issue of a few millions a year, 
connect the Jlississippi River with Lake Michigan, 
and thereby increase the commerce between the 
Northwest and the South. Money could be issued 
in another way. We can use any available coin on 
hand to take up matured bonds and replace the com 
so used with paper money. I have introduced a Ml 
during this Congress to provide m this way f oi the 
payment of the 2 per cent, bonds now outstanding 
payable at the option of the Government and 
amounting to about $25,000,000. /hese methods a^e 
suggested as legitimate means of distributing Gov- 
ernment issues without resorting to money-loaning 
or to the use of banks. Government paper should 
be issued in the place of national bank notes as they 

'^''if'it'is'said that more coin will have to be gath- 
ered into the Treasury to redeem these new notes, 
I reply that the Government will need a less reserve 
for a given amount of paper money than will be 
required by private banks. Our coin reserve is not 
Z drawn upon except for gold to export and 
when our patriotic financiers desire a new issue of 
bonds Whenever the Government exercises its 
option by paying coin obligations in silver, when 
£tTs more convenient, a much smaller reserve -1 
be sufficient. So long as the option is given to the 
note holder, the Government is at the mercy of any 
band of conspirators who may seek to at.acU tne 
go c reserve, for a small vohnne of redeemable cur- 
rency reissued continually, is sufficient to draw out 
in ti; course of time any gold reserve however 
great We shall have no difficulty about our re- 



226 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

serve when we return to the principle of bimet- 
alism, and use the option of paying gold or silver 
in the interest of the people. 

The second great objection to banks of issue — 
and it applies to both State and national banks — is 
that it places in the hands of interested parties the 
power to regulate the volume of the currency, and 
through it the market value of all other property. 
I have already spoken of the dangers inherent in a 
monetary system when the volume of money is reg- 
ulated by a legislative body. I stated these dan- 
gers as strongly as possible, for I believe them to be 
real dangers which can scarcely be exaggerated, but 
dangerous as it is to place such tremendous power 
in the hands of a legislative body, it is infinitely 
more dangerous to place that power in the hands of 
banks. 

If we depart from metalic money, whose volume 
is largely dependent on natural laws — if the Gov- 
ernment will keep its hands off — we must lodge 
somewhere the power to control the currency. It 
must be controlled by the Government or by indi- 
viduals, and we are to choose in which way the sta- 
bility of the dollar can best be secured. If value 
becomes a matter of chance when the volume of 
money is regulated by law, it is no advantage to go 
from pure chance to loaded dice. I would far 
rather trust the exercise of this power to representa- 
tives who act before the public and are responsible 
to their constituents, than to bank officers, who act 
in private and are responsible to no one. 

If banks control the volume of money they -^dll 
control it in their own interest, and will be abso- 



MONEY 227 

lutely indifferent to the general welfare except as 
it conduces to their own welfare. This is not a 
harsh criticism of bankers ; it is only a declaration 
that they are human, like other people, and do busi- 
ness on business principles. 

Jefferson once said, in speaking of the power of 
public opinion : 

"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep 
alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their 
errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once 
they become inattentive to public affairs you and I, and 
Congress and assemblies, judges and governors, shall all be- 
come wolves." 

If representatives are likely to become wolves, un- 
less restrained by the watchful eyes and the ready 
reproof of those who elect them, is the temptation 
not greater when the individual is a financial master 
instead of a public servant ? Let me call attention 
to Jefferson's opinion of the manner in which banks 
regulate the volume of the currency. In a letter 
Avritten from Monticello, November 7, 1819, to John 
Adams, Jefferson said : 

"We were laboring under a dropsical fulness of circulating 
medium. Nearly all of it is now called in by the banks, 
who have the regulation of the safety valves of our for- 
tunes, and who condense and explode them at their will. 

In a letter written January 24, 1814, to Ex-Presi- 
dent Adams, he said : 

"I have ever been the enemy of banks, not of those dis- 
counting for cash, but of those foisting their own paper 
into circulation and thus banishing our cash. My zeal 
a-ainst those institutions was so warm and open at the 
establishment of the Bank of the United States that I was 
derided as a maniac by the tribe of bank mongers who were 
seeking to filch from the public their swindling and oarren 
gains." 



22S BRYANTS SPEECHES 

Some one has already referred to the remarks of 
President Buchanan on this subject, but they will 
bear repetition. In his first message to Congress in 
1857, when he had before him in plain view the 
distress caused by the suspension of State banks, 
he said : 

"In all former revulsions the blame might have been fairly 
attributed to a variety of co-operating causes ; but not so 
upon the present occasion. It is apparent that our existing 
misfortunes have proceeded from our extravagant and vicious 
system of paper currency and bank credits, exciting the 
people to wild speculations and gambling in stocks. These 
revulsions must continue to recur at successive intervals, so 
long as the amount of the paper currency and bank loans 
and discounts of the country shall be left to the discretion 
of fourteen hundred irresponsible banking institutions, which, 
from the very law of their nature, will consult the interest 
of their stockholders rather than the public welfare." 

Testimony like this might be submitted to an in- 
definite amount to show that State banks acted for 
their own private gain in the issue of money and 
not for the public good. The fact that national 
banks have been less reckless than State banks must 
be credited to circumstances rather than to any 
special wisdom or virtue in the banks. Being con- 
fined to Government bonds as a basis for their 
money, their notes have been kept at par wdth green- 
backs and the volume of bank notes has not been 
subject to such violent fluctuations as marked State 
bank issues. But in so far as they could, national 
banks have consulted their own pecuniary interest 
in regulating the volume of outstanding notes. I 
give below a statement of the volume of national 
bank notes in circulation on the first day of each 
month since July 1, 1893 : 



MONEY 229 



Jan. 1, 1804...$20S.5P>8.S44 
Feb. 1, 1894... 207,862,107 
Mar. 1, 1894... 207,479,520 
Apr. 1, 1894... 207,875,095 
May 1, 1894. . . 207,833.032 
June 1, 1894. . . 207,245,049 



July 1, 1893... $178,713,872 

Aug. 1, 1893... 183,755,147 

Sept. 1, 1893... 198,980,368 

Oct. 1, 1893... 208,690..579 

Nov. 1, 1893... 209.311,993 

Dec. 1, 1893... 208,948,105 

It will be noticed that the volume of notes in- 
creased last summer when bonds went down and the 
issue, therefore, became more profitable, and it will 
be noticed, also, that the volume decreased after- 
ward, when bonds rose, there being $2,000,000 less 
in circulation on June 1, 1894, than on November 1, 
1893. 

The volume is now decreasing, altho the issue of 
silver certificates has ceased and more money is 
needed rather than less. The demand made by the 
banks for the privilege of issuing notes up to the 
face of their bonds, accompanied by the promise 
that they will issue more notes if the privilege is 
granted, is an admission that the issue depends en- 
tirely on the profit there is in it, and not upon the 
demand for more money. When we are trying to 
destroy other kinds of trusts shall we put ourselves 
in the power of the worst of all trusts — a money 
trust ? 

Another important objection to banks of issue, 
whether State or national, is that, as soon as they 
begin the issue of money themselves, they become 
interested in preventing the circulation of any 
money which will operate to the injury of their cur- 
rency. They acquire what they call a "vested in- 
terest" in the country's money, insist that it is a 
breach of faith to disturb the business into which 
they have been ** invited," and resent any inter- 



230 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

ference whatever with what they regard as their 
exclusive right to control our finances. 

So strongly was Jefferson imprest with this dan- 
ger that he wrote to John Ta^^lor : 

"I sincerely believe with you that banking establishments 
are more dangerous than standing armies." 

We have found the national banks opposing as 
far as possible a reduction of the bonded debt, be- 
cause that would diminish the volume of their se- 
curities. We have seen them opposing legislation 
favorable to silver, and prophesying all manner of 
evil. But they are unlike Cassandra in this, that, 
while her true prophesy was unheeded, their false 
prophecy finds ready believers. Just now most of 
them are fighting the State bank currency because 
it may destroy their monopoly of bank notes. This 
is not strange, it is to be expected. Two thousand 
years ago the silversmiths at Ephesus banded them- 
selves together to drive Paul away because his 
preaching interfered with their business — the mak- 
ing of images. The cry that went up then was so 
similar to that which we hear now that it may be 
worth while to quote the account given in the nine- 
teenth chapter of Acts: 

2.3. And the same time there arose no small stir about that 
way. 

24. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, 
which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain 
unto the craftsmen : 

25. Whom he called together with the workmen of like 
occupation, and said. Sirs, ye know that by this craft we 
have our wealth. 

26. Moreover, ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, 
but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded 
and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, 
which are made with hands. 



MONEY 231 

27. So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set 
at naught; but also that the temple of the great goddess 
Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be 
destroj'ed. whom all Asia and the world worshipeth. 

28. And w'hen the3' heard these sayings they were full of 
wrath, and cried out, saying, "Great is Diana of the Ephe- 
sians." 

I am not willing to increase the number of those 
who have a pecuniary interest in a vicious system of 
currency; I am not willing to establish throughout 
the States powerful and influential enemies of finan- 
cial reform ; I am not willing to build up more wor- 
shipers of fal§e gods and more makers of images. 
If we ever expect to bring the Government back to 
correct principles and eliminate favoritism from 
legislation, we must diminish rather than multiplif 
the number of those who, mindful only of their own 
craft, are willing to drown the voice of Truth with 
their praise of Diana. 

Still another objection to banks of issue is the 
danger that their notes will become worthless. This 
danger is now reduced to a minimum in the present 
national banking system, but as we pay off the 
public debt and retire the bonds the system must be 
given up or other securities substituted for Govern- 
ment bonds. Already the matter is being discussed 
and bills have been introduced providing for vari- 
ous kinds of security. No bank notes can rise in 
value above the national currency and none can 
equal it unless guaranteed by the Government. If 
provision is made for a Government guarantee the 
banks will make the money and the Government will 
stand the loss. If the Government does not guaran- 
tee the notes, then the note-holder is in constant 



232 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

danger of loss, so that it is simply a question 
whether some of the people will suffer or all. It is 
needless to recount the experiences through which 
we have passed with State bank paper. 

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer], 
whose ability, learning, and industry illumine every 
subject which he discusses, has left little to be said 
on this branch of the question. Having just passed 
through a panic we can imagine how much worse it 
would have been if a large volume of bank paper, 
fluctuating in value, had contributed another ele- 
ment of uncertainty. 

Gentlemen say that we have learned by experi- 
ence and will avoid the evils which overtook us be- 
fore. The best evidence that we have not learned 
by experience is found in the willingness of so many 
gentlemen to risk the State bank circulation again. 
Jefferson gave the best definition of government 
which has ever been suggested when he said : ' ' The 
whole art of government consists in the art of being 
honest." And added: ''The great principles of 
right and wrong are legible to every reader ; to pur- 
sue them requires not the aid of many counselors. ' ' 

Our forefathers were as honest as we, and under- 
stood as well the principles of right and wrong, nor 
were they more beset than we by the corrupting 
influences which surround official life, and yet, in 
spite of their intelligence and their probity, banks 
were organized without capital and sent forth their 
worthless paper to cheat and defraud the innocent 
citizen. "We may not only expect a recurrence of 
these evils under similar circumstances, but, if local 
bonds are used for security, we may expect to see 



MONEY 233 

bonds voted and public debts incurred in order to 
secure a foundation for currency. The difficulty 
lies not in the ignorance of legislators nor in the dis- 
honesty of those who grant bank charters, but in 
the fact that no legislative body can be trusted to 
grant special privileges to favored individuals. 
Whenever it is attempted government becomes an 
instrument of injustice and law the means of plun- 
der, because the few who receive will always be 
present and clamorous, while the many who pay 
remain at home unheeded and unheard. The only 
sure protection from vicious legislation is to be 
found in the rigid observance of the old Democratic 
motto : 
"Equal rights to all and special privileges to none." 

It has been said that we need a flexible currency, 
and the bank of issue has been advocated as the only 
means of securing such a currency. Since the value 
of a dollar depends upon the number of dollars, it 
becomes a serious question whether we want a cur- 
rency whose volume is subject to frequent change. 

History has shown that while banks of issue make 
a currencv flexible it is bent to their own interests, 
and we must remember that the power to expand 
the currency for the public good carries with it the 
power to contract the currency for the public harm. 
It may be, therefore, that even if flexibility is de- 
sirable it may be necessarily associated with dan- 
gers which would more than offset its advantages. 
Perhaps what is meant by a flexible currency is a 
currency which will be in the right place at the 
right time. One of the oft-repeated arguments in 

119 



234 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

favor of State bank notes is that they will provide a 
local currency, and much just complaint has been 
made against the congestion of money at the great 
centers of trade. But is this not due to defects in 
our banking system rather than to defects in our 
monetary system? 

It is now necessary that every bank in the country 
shall keep a deposit in New York, and, perhaps, in 
one or two other cities, for purposes of exchange. 
This tends to make money plentiful in the great 
cities and scarce in the country. 

I desire to suggest a plan which, I think, will rem- 
edy this evil, and which will not only establish a 
banking center in each State, but will save the ex- 
pense of transporting money. The Government al- 
ways has on hand a large amount of money stored 
at its principal treasuries. This money can be kept 
just as safely if the number of branch offices is in- 
creased and the amount divided up. If, for in- 
stance, the Government establishes a branch of the 
Treasury at every State capital and at other large 
commercial centers, it can receive money at one 
branch and give a draft on any other branch, and 
thus relieve the country banks from keeping large 
deposits far from home. The amount of money at 
each branch will be so considerable that it will not 
be necessary to transport money to any great ex- 
tent, and thus the Government Avill be able to sell 
exchange at a low rate, just sufficient to cover ex- 
penses. This will aid in the decentralization of 
money, and will enable us to keep our money at 
home to a much greater extent than we can now. 

It has grieved me much to be compelled to differ 



MONEY 235 

from associates with whom I have agreed on abnost 
every other question ; but when the Representative 
has given to a subject his best thought and investi- 
gation, it is his duty to be true to the interests of 
his constituents and true to his own judgment. 
Some gentlemen have urged that the Democratic 
party should yield to the demand for State banks 
in order to insure victory this fall. 

Mr. Jefferson said, in speaking of one of his con- 
temporaries : 

"He has not discovered that sublime truth, that a bold 
unequivocal virtue is the best handmaid even to ambition." 

That is a sublime truth, a^d a truth as applicable 
to a party as to an individual. If the issue of money 
by private corporations is wrong, the Democratic 
party cannot afford to favor it for the sake of tem- 
porary^ success. 

Great and important as is the State, we cannot 
afford to allow even a State to substitute a poor 
local currency for a good national currency. If the 
General Government ought to issue and control all 
paper money, let us take up the principle and bear 
it to victory. Gentlemen have quoted platforms; 
let me call your attention to the Democratic nation- 
al platform adopted in 1884 : 

"We believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage 
of the Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible 
into such money without loss." 

Because some of our Democratic brethren have 
abandoned ' ' the gold and silver coinage of the Con- 
stitution," shall w^e who still hold to that part of 
the plank surrender the last part and restore a cur- 



236 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

rency which may he convertible only at a loss. I 
know not by what course of reasoning those who 
depart from the faith may justify their apostacy 
but I shall still ^'hold to the use of both gold and 
silver as the standard money of the country, and 
to the coinage of both gold and silver without clis- 
crimination against either metal or charge for 
mintage/' and shall oppose the issue of any paper 
money, except by the General Government, to the 
end that all such paper money may be convertible 
without loss." This position is m Ime with tke 
teachings of the fathers. Andrew Jackson expressed 
a great truth when he said : 

"There are no necessary evils in government; evils exist 
only in its abuses." 

Is it not better to remove the existing abuses of 
government than to encourage the establishment of, 
new ones? Can we not better afford to suffer hasty 
criticisms than to earn permanent censure? Is it 
not better to climb on through the clouds up to the 
sunlit summit than to begin a descent even amid; 

applause? ^ . , t i 

Let us, then, with the courage of Andrew Jack- 
son, apply to present conditions the principles 
taught by Thomas Jefferson— Thomas Jefferson, the 
greatest constructive statesman whom the world has 
ever known; the grandest warrior who ever battled 
for human liberty ! He quarried from the mountain 
of eternal truth the four pillars upon whose 
strength all popular government must rest. In 
the Declaration of American Independence he pro- 
claimed the principles with which there is, without 



MONEY 237 

which there cannot he, "a government of the people 
by the people, and for the people." When he de- 
clared that ''all men are created equal; that they 
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalien- 
able Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and 
the pursuit of Happiness, and that to secure these 
rights Governments are instituted among Men, de- 
riving their just powers from the consent of th^ 
governed," he declared all that lies between the 
Alpha and Omega of Democracy. 

Alexander 'Svept for other worlds to conquer" 
after he had carried his victorious banner through- 
out the then known world. Napoleon ''rearranged 
the map of Europe with his sword" amid the lamen- 
tations of those by whose blood he was exalted ; but 
when these and other military heroes are forgotten 
and their achievements disappear in the cycle's 
sweep of years, children will still lisp the name of 
Jefferson, and freemen will ascribe due praise to 
him who filled the kneeling subject's heart with 
hope and bade him stand erect — a sovereign among 
his peers. 



VII 
IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 

Delivered on July 8, 1896, in closing the debate on the 
adoption of the platform. This is sometimes called "The 
Cross of Gold" speech and sometimes "The Crown of 
Thorns" speech. 

I WOULD be presumptuous, indeed, to present 
myself against the distinguished gentlemen to 
whom you have listened if this were a mere 
measuring of abilities ; but this is not a contest be- 
tween persons. The humblest citizen in all the land, 
when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is 
stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak 
to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of 
liberty — the cause of humanity. 

When this debate is concluded, a motion will be 
made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in 
commendation of the administration, and also the 
resolution offered in condemnation of the adminis- 
tration. We object to bringing this question down 
to the level of persons. The individual is but an 
atom ; he is born, he acts, he dies ; but principles are 
eternal ; and this has been a contest over a principle. 

Never before in the history of this country has 
there been witnessed such a contest as that through 
which we have just passed. Never before in 
the history of American politics has a great issue 
been fought out as this issue has been, by the voters 

(238) 



IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 239 

I of a great party. On the fourth of March, 1895, a 
lew Democrats, most of them memhers of Con-rcss 
issued an address to the Democrats of the nation' 
assertnig that the money question was the para' 
mount issue of the hour; declarmg that a majority 
o± the Democratic party had the right to control the 
action of the party on this paramount issue; and 
concluding with the request that the believers in 
the free coinage of silver in the Democratic party 
Should organize, take charge of, and control the 
policy of the Democratic party. Three months 
later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, 
and the silver Democrats went forth openly and 
bourageously proclaiming their belief, and declar- 
ing that, if successful, they would crystallize into a 
platform the declaration which th'ey had made, 
rhen began the conflict. With a zeal approaching 
;he zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed 
Peter the Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth 
:rom victory unto victory until they are now^ assem- 
)led. not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up 
:he judgment already rendered by the plain people 
)f this country. In this contest brother has been ar- 
rayed against brother, father against son. The 
varmest ties of love, acquaintance and association 
lave been disregarded ; old leaders have been cast 
iside when they have refused to give expression to 
he sentiments of those whom they would lead, and 
lew leaders have sprung up to give direction to 
his cause of truth. Thus has the contest been 
vaged, and we have assembled here under as bind- 
ng and solemn instructions as were ever imposed 
ipon representatives of the people. 



240 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

We do not come as individuals. As individuals 
we might have been glad to compliment the gentle- 
man from New York (Senator Hill), but we know 
that the people for whom we speak would never be 
willing to put him in a position where he could 
thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it 
was not a question of persons ; it was a question of 
principle, and it is not with gladness, my friends, 
that we find ourselves brought into conflict with 
those who are now arrayed on the other side. 

The gentleman who preceded me (ex-Governor 
Russell) spoke of the State of Massachusetts; let 
me assure him that not one present in all this con- 
vention entertains the least hostility to the people of 
the State of Massachvisetts, but we stand here rep- 
resenting people who are the equals, before the 
law, of the greatest citizens in the State of Massa- 
chusetts. "When you (turning to the gold delegates) 
come before us and tell us that we are about to dis- 
turb your business interests, we reply that you have 
disturbed our business interests by your course. 

We say to you that you have made the definition 
of a business man too limited in its application. 
The man who is employed for wages is as much a 
business man as his employer, the attorney in a 
country town is as much a business man as the 
corporation counsel in a great metropolis ; the mer- 
chant at the cross-roads store is as much a busi- 
ness man as the merchant of New York; the 
farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils 
all day — who begins in the spring and toils all 
summer — and who by the application of brain and 
muscle to the natural resources of the country 



IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 241 

creates wealth, is as much a business man as the 
man who goes upon the board of trade and bets 
upon the price of grain; the miners who go down 
a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thou- 
sand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from 
their hiding places the precious metals to be poured 
into the channels of trade are as much business 
men as the few financial magnates who, in a back v 
room, corner the money of the world. We come to 
speak for this broader class of business men. 

Ah, my friends, we say not one word against 
those who live upon the Atlantic coast, but the 
hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of 
the wilderness, who have made the desert to blos- 
som as the rose — the pioneers away out there 
(pointing to the West), who rear their children 
near to Nature 's heart, where they can mingle their 
voices with the voices of the birds — cut there where 
they have erected schoolhouses for the education of 
their young, churches where they praise their Cre- 
ator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their 
dead — these people, we say, are as deserving of the 
consideration of our party as any people in this 
country. It is for these that we speak. We do not 
come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of con- 
quest ; we are fighting in the defense of our homes, 
our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, 
and our petitions have been scorned; we have en- 
treated, and our entreaties have been disregarded : 
we have begged, and they have mocked when our 
calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no 
more ; we petition no more. We defy them. 

Q"'he gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he 



242 BEYAX'S SPEECHES 

fears a Robespierre. ISly friends, in this land of the 
free you need not fear that a tyrant will spring up 
from among the people. What we need is an An- 
drew Jackson to stand, as Jackson stood, against 
the encroachments of organized wealth. 

They tell us that this platform was made to catch 
votes. We reply to them that changing conditions 
make new issues; that the principles upon which 
Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but 
that they must be applied to new conditions as they 
arise. Conditions have arisen, and we are here to 
meet these conditions. They tell us that the income 
tax ought not to be brought in here ; that it is a new 
idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. 'My friends, 
we have not criticized ; we have simply called atten- 
tion to what you already know. If you want criti- 
cisms, read the dissenting opinions of the court. 
There you will find criticisms. They say that we 
passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The 
income tax law was not unconstitutional when it was 
passed; it was not unconstitutional when it went 
before the Supreme Court for the first time ; it did 
not become unconstitutional until one of the judges 
changed his mind, and we cannot be expected to 
know when a judge will change his mind. The in- 
come tax is just. It simply intends to put the bur- 
dens of government justly upon the backs of the 
people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I 
find a man who is not willing to bear his share of 
the burdens of the government which protects him, 
I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings 
of a government like ours. 



IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 243 

They say that we are opposing national bank cur- 
rency; it is true. If you will read what Thomas 
Benton said, you will find he said that, in searching 
history, he could find but one parallel to Andrew 
Jackson; that was Cicero, who destroyed the con- 
spiracy of Cataline and saved Rome. Benton said 
that Cicero only did for Eome what Jackson did for 
us when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved 
America. We say in our platform that we believe 
that the right to coin and issue money is a function 
of government. We believe it. We believe that it 
is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with 
safety be delegated to private individuals than we 
could afford to delegate to private individuals the 
power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. 
Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Demo- 
cratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion 
from the gentleman who has addrest us on the part 
of the minority. Those who are opposed to this 
proposition tell us that the issue of paper money 
is a function of the bank, and that the Government 
ought to go out of the banking business. I stand 
with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell 
them, as he did, that the issue of money is a func- 
tion of government, and that the banks ought to go 
out of the governing business. 

They complain about the plank which declares 
against life tenure in office. They have tried to 
strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What 
we oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is 
being built up in Washington, and which excludes 
from participation in official benefits the humbler 
members of society. 



244 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Let me call your attention to two or three impor- 
tant things. The gentleman from New York says 
that he will propose an amendment to the platform 
providing that the proposed change in our monetary 
system shall not affect contracts already made. Let 
me remind you that there is no intention of affect- 
ing those contracts which according to present laws 
are made payable in gold; but if he means to say 
that we cannot change our monetary system with- 
out protecting those who have loaned money before 
the change was made, I desire to ask him where, 
in law or in morals, he can find justification for not 
protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was 
passed, if he now insists that we must protect the 
creditors. 

He says he will also propose an amendment which 
will provide for the suspension of free coinage if 
we fail to maintain the parity within a year. We 
reply that when we advocate a policy which we be- 
lieve will be successful, we are not compelled to raise 
a doubt as to our own sincerity by suggesting what 
we shall do if we fail. I ask him, if he would apply 
his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. 
He says he wants this country to try to secure an 
international agreement. Why does he not tell us 
what he is going to do if he fails to secure an inter- 
national agreement ? There is more reason for him 
to do that than there is for us to provide against 
the failure to maintain the parity. Our opponents 
have tried for twenty years to secure an interna- 
tional agreement, and those are waiting for it most 
patiently who do not want it at all. 

And noWj my friends, let me come to the para- 



IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 245 

mount issue. If they ask us why it is that we say 
more on the money question than we say upon the 
tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain 
its thousands, the gold standard has slain its tens 
of thousands. If they ask us why we do not em- 
body in our platform all the things that we believe 
in, we reply that when we have restored the money 
of the Constitution all other necessary reforms will 
be possible ; but that until this is done there is no 
other reform that can be accomplished. 

Why is it that within three months such a change 
has come over the country? Three months ago, 
when it was confidently asserted that those who 
believe in the gold standard would frame our plat- 
form and nominate our candidates, even the advo- 
cates of the gold standard did not think that we 
could elect a President. And they had good reason 
for their doubt, because there is scarcely a State 
here to-day asking for the gold standard which is 
not in the absolute control of the Republican party. 
But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated 
at St. Louis upon a platform which declared for 
the maintenance of the gold standard until it can be 
changed into bimetalism by international agree- 
ment. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man 
among the Republicans, and three months ago every- 
body in the Republican party prophesied his elec- 
tion. How is it to-day? Why, the man who was 
once pleased to think that he looked like Napoleon 
— that man shudders to-day when he remembers 
that he was nominated on the anniversary of the 
battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens 
he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the 



246 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely 
shores of St Helena. 

Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the 
reason for the change evident to any one who will 
look at the matter? No private character, how- 
ever pure, no personal popularity, however great, 
can protect from the avenging wrath of an indig- 
nant people a man who will declare that he is in 
favor of fastening the gold standard upon this 
country, or who is willing to surrender the right of 
self-government and place the legislative control of 
our affairs in the hands of foreign potentates and 
powers. 

We go forth confident that we shall win. Why ? 
Because upon the paramount issue of this cam- 
j)aign there is not a spot of ground upon which the 
enemy will dare to challenge battle. If they tell 
us that the gold standard is a good thing, we shall 
point to their platform and tell them that their 
platform pledges the party to get rid of the gold 
standard and substitute bimetalism. If the gold 
standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? 
I call your attention to the fact that some of the 
very people Avho are in this convention to-day and 
who tell us that we ought to declare in favor of 
international bimetalism — thereby declaring that 
the gold standard is wrong and that the principle 
of bimetalism is better — these very people four 
months ago were open and avowed advocates of the 
gold standard, and were then telling us that we 
could not legislate two metals together, even with 
the aid of all the world. If the gold standard is a 
good thing, we ought to declare in favor of its 



IN THE CHICxiGO CONVENTION 247 

retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and 
if the gold standard is a bad thing why should \vc 
wait until other nations are willing to help us to 
let go? Here is the line of battle, and we care not 
upon which issue they force the fight; we are pre- 
pared to meet them on either issue or on both. If 
they tell us that the gold standard is the standard 
of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most 
enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never 
declared for a gold standard and that both the 
great parties this year are declaring against it. If 
the gold standard is the standard of civilization, 
why, my friends, should we not have it? If they 
come to meet us on that issue we can present the 
history of our nation. More than that; we can 
tell them that they will search the pages of history 
in vain to find a single instance where the common 
people of any land have ever declared themselves 
in favor of the gold standard. They can find where 
the holders of fixt investments have declared for 
a gold standard, but not where the masses have. 

i\Ir. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle 
between ' ' the idle holders of idle capital ' ' and ' ' the 
struggling masses, who produce the wealth and 
pay the tanes of the country ' ' ; and, my friends, the 
question we are to decide is : Upon which side will 
the Democratic party fight ; upon the side of ' ' the 
idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of 
*'the struggling masses"? That is the question 
which the party must answer first, and then it must 
be answered by each individual hereafter. The 
sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by 
the platform, are on the side of the struggling 



248 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

masses who have ever been the foundation of the 
Democratic party. There are two ideas of govern- 
ment. There are those who believe that, if you will 
only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, 
their- prosperity will leak through on those below. 
The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you 
legislate to make the masses prosperous, their pros- 
perity will find its way up through every class which 
rests upon them. 

You come to us and tell us that the great cities 
are in favor of the gold standard ; we reply that the 
great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. 
Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and 
your cities will spring up again as if by magic ; but 
destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the 
streets of every city in the country. 

My friends, we declare that this nation is able to 
legislate for its own people on every question, with- 
out waiting for the aid or consent of any other 
nation on earth; and upon that issue we expect to 
carry every State in the Union. I shall not slander 
the inhabitants of the fair State of Massachusetts 
nor the inhabitants of the State of New York by 
saying that, when they are confronted with the 
proposition, they will declare that this nation is not 
able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of 
1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three 
millions in number, had the courage to declare their 
political independence of every other nation; shall 
we, their descendants, when we have grown to 
seventy millions, declare that we are less independ- 
ent than our forefathers? No, my friends, that wnll 
never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we 



IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 249 

care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If 
they say bimetalism is good, but that we cannot 
have it until other nations help us, we reply that, 
instead of having a gold standard because England 
has, we will restore bimetalism, and then let Eng- 
land have bimetalism because the United States 
has it. If they dare to come out in the open field 
and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we 
will fight them to the uttermost. lEIaving behind 
us the producing masses of this nation and the 
world, supported by the commercial interests, the 
laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we 
will answer their demand for a gold standard by 
saying to them: You shall not press down upon 
the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall 
not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. 



lao 



VIII 
THE SILVER QUESTION 

Delivered in Madison Square Garden, New York City, 
on Aug. 10, 1896, in accepting the Democratic nomination 
for the Presidency. This speech contains, in condensed form, 
the arguments offered in support of the restoration of bi- 
metalism. 

I SHALL, at a future day and in a formal letter, 
accept the nomination which is now tendered 
by the Notification Committee, and I shall at 
that time touch upon the issues presented by the 
platform. It is fitting, however, that at this time, 
in the presence of those here assembled, I speak at 
some length in regard to the campaign upon which 
we are now entering. We do not underestimate the 
forces arrayed against us. nor are we unmindful of 
the importance of the struggle in which we are en- 
gaged ; but, relying for success upon the righteous- 
ness of our cause, we shall defend with all possible 
vigor the positions taken by our party. We are not 
surprized that some of our opponents, in the absence 
of better argument, resort to abusive epithets, but 
they may rest assured that no language, however 
violent, no invectives, however vehement, will lead 
us to depart a single hair 's breadth from the course 
marked out by the National Convention. The citi- 
zen, either public or private, who assails the charac- 
ter and questions the patriotism of the delegates 
assembled in the Chicago Convention, assails the 

(250) 



THE SILVER QUESTION 251 

character and questions the patriotism of the mill- 
ions who have arrayed themselves under the banner 
there raised. 

It has been charged by men standing high in 
business and political circles that our platform is 
a menace to private security and public safety; 
and it has been asserted that those whom I have the 
honor for the time being, to represent, not only 
meditate an attack upon the rights of property, but 
are the foes both of social order and national honor. 

Those who stand upon the Chicago platform are 
prepared to make known and to defend every mo- 
tive which influences them, every purpose which 
animates them, and every hope which inspires them. 
They understand the genius of our institutions, 
they are staunch supporters of the form of govern- 
ment under which we live, and they build their 
faith upon foundations laid by the fathers. Andrew 
Jackson has stated, with admirable clearness and 
with an emphasis which cannot be surpassed, both 
the duty and the sphere of government. He said: 

"Distinctions in society will always exist under every 
just government. Equality of talents, of education or of 
wealth, cannot be produced by human institutions. In the 
full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of 
superior industry, economy and virtue, every man is equally 
entitled to protection by law." 

We yield to none in our devotion to the doctrine 
just enunciated. Our campaign has not for its 
object the reconstruction of society. We cannot 
insure to the vicious the fruits of a virtuous life; 
we would not invade the home of the provident in 
order to supply the wants of the spendthrift; we 
do not propose to transfer the rewards of industry 



252 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

to the lap of indolence. Property is and will re- 
main the stimulus to endeavor and the compensa- 
tion for toil. We believe, as asserted in the Dec- 
laration of Independence, that all men are created 
equal; but that does not mean that ail men are or 
can be equal in possessions, in ability or in merit; 
it simply means that all shall stand equal before 
the law, and that government officials shall not, in 
making, construing or enforcing the law, discrimi- 
nate between citizens. 

I assert that property rights, as well as the 
rights of persons, are safe in the hands of the com- 
mon people. Abraham Lincoln, in his message 
sent to Congress in December, 1861, said : 

"No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those 
who toil up from poverty ; none less inclined to take or 
touch aught which they have not honestly earned." 

I repeat his language with unqualified approval, 
and join with him in the warning which he added, 
namely : 

"Let them beware of surrendering a political power 
which they already possess, and which power, if surren- 
dered, will surely be used to close the doors of advancement 
against such as they^ and to fix new disabilities and bur- 
dens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost." 

Those who daily follow the injunction, ^'In the 
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," are now, 
as they ever have been, the bulwark of law and 
order — the source of our nation's greatness in time 
of peace, and its surest defenders in time of war. 

But I have only read a part of Jackson's utter- 
ance — let me give you his conclusion : 

"But when the laws undertake to add to those natural 
and just advantages artificial distinctions — to grant titles, 



THE SILVER QUESTION 253 

gratuities and exclusive privileges — to make the rich richer 
and the potent more powerful — the humble members of so- 
ciety — the farmers, mechanics and the laborers — who have 
neither the time nor the means of securing like favors for 
themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of 
their government." 

Those who support the Chicago platform endorse 
all of the quotation from Jackson — the latter part 
as well as the former part. 

We are not surprized to find arrayed against us 
those who are the beneficiaries of government fa- 
voritism — they have read our platform. Nor are 
we surprized to learn that we must in this cam- 
paign face the hostility of those who find a pecuni- 
ary advantage in advocating the doctrine of non- 
interference when great aggregations of wealth are 
trespassing upon the rights of individuals. We 
welcome such opposition — it is the highest endorse- 
ment which could be bestowed upon us. We are 
content to have the cooperation of those who desire 
to have the Government administered without fear 
or favor. It is not the wish of the general public 
that trusts should spring into existence and over- 
ride the weaker members of society; it is not the 
wish of the general public that these trusts should 
destroy competition and then collect such tax as 
they will from those who are at their mercy; nor 
is it the fault of the general public that the instru- 
mentalities of government have been so often pros- 
tituted to purposes of private gain. Those who 
stand upon the Chicago platform believe that the 
government should not only avoid wrongdoing, but 
that it should also prevent wrongdoing; and they 
believe that the law should be enforced alike 



254 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

against all enemies of the public weal. They do 
not excuse petit larceny, but they declare that grand 
larceny is equally a crime ; they do not defend the 
occupation of the highwayman who robs the un- 
suspecting traveler, but they include among the 
transgressors those who, through the more polite 
and less hazardous means of legislation, appropri- 
ate to their own use the proceeds of the toil of 
others. The commandment, ' ' Thou shalt not steal, ' * 
thundered from Sinai and reiterated in the legis- 
lation of all nations, is no respecter of persons. It 
must be applied to the great as well as to the small ; 
to the strong as well as to the weak; to the cor- 
porate person created by law as well as to the 
person of flesh and blood created by the Almighty. 
No government is worthy of the name which is not 
able to protect from every arm uplifted for his in- 
jury the humblest citizen who lives beneath the 
flag. It follows as a necessary conclusion that 
vicious legislation must be remedied by the people 
who suffer from the effects of such legislation, and 
not by those who enjoy its benefits. 

The Chicago platform has been condemned by 
some because it dissents from an opinion rendered 
by the Supreme Court declaring the income tax law 
unconstitutional. Our critics even go so far as to 
apply the name anarchist to those who stand upon 
that plank of the platform. It must be remem- 
bered that we expressly recognize the binding force 
of that decision so long as it stands as a part of 
the law of the land. There is in the platform no 
suggestion of an attempt to dispute the authority 
of the Supreme Court. The party is simply pledged 



THE SILVER QUESTION 255 

to use "all the constitutional power which remains 
after that decision, or which may come from its 
reversal by the Court as it may hereafter be con- 
stituted.'' Is there anj^ disloyalty in that pledge? 
For a hundred years the Supreme Court of the 
United States has sustained the principle which 
underlies the income tax. Some twenty years ago 
this same Court sustained, without a dissenting 
voice, an income tax law almost identical with the 
one recently overthrown. Has not a future court 
as much right to return to the judicial precedents 
of a century as the present Court had to depart 
from them? When courts allow rehearings they 
admit that error is possible ; the late decision against 
the income tax was rendered by a majority of one 
after a rehearing. 

"While the money question overshadows all other 
questions in importance, I desire it distinctly un- 
derstood that I shall offer no apology for the income 
tax plank of the Chicago platform. The last in- 
come tax law sought to apportion the burdens of 
government more equitably among those who en- 
joy the protection of the Government. At present 
the expenses of the Federal Government, collected , 
through internal revenue taxes and import duties, [ 
are especially burdensome upon the poorer classes 
of society. A law which collects from some citizens 
more than their share of the taxes and collects from 
other citizens less than their share is simply an in- 
direct means of transferring one man's property 
to another man 's pocket, and, while the process may 
be quite satisfactory to the men w^ho escape just 
taxation, it can never be satisfactory to those who 



256 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

are overburdened. The last income tax law, with 
its exemption provisions, when considered in con- 
nection with other methods of taxation in force, 
was not unjust to the possessors of large incomes, 
because they were not compelled to pay a total 
Federal tax greater than their share. The income 
tax is not new, nor is it based upon hostility to the 
rich. The system is employed in several of the most 
important nations of Europe, and every income tax 
law now upon the statute books in any land, so far 
as I have been able to ascertain, contains an ex- 
emption clause. While the collection of an income 
tax in other countries does not make it necessary 
for this Nation to adopt the system, yet it ought to 
moderate the language of those who denounce the 
income tax as an assault upon the well-to-do. 

Not only shall I refuse to apologize for the ad- 
vocacy of an income tax law by the National Con- 
vention, but I shall also refuse to apologize for 
the exercise by it of the right to dissent from a 
decision of the Supreme Court. In a government 
like ours every public official is a public servant, 
whether he holds office by election or by appoint- 
ment, whether he serves for a term of years or dur- 
ing good behavior, and the people have a right to 
criticize his official acts. ''Confidence is every- 
where the parent of despotism ; free government 
exists in jealousy and not in confidence" — these are 
the words of Thomas Jefferson, and I submit that 
they present a truer conception of popular govern- 
ment than that entertained by those who would 
prohibit an unfavorable comment upon a court de- 
cision. Truth will vindicate itself ; only error fears 



THE SILVER QUESTION 257 

free speech. No public official who conscientiously 
discharges his duty as he sees it will desire to deny 
to those whom he serves the right to discuss his 
official conduct. 

Now let me ask you to consider the paramount 
question of this campaign — the money question. It 
is scarcely necessary to defend the principle of 
bimetalism. No national party during the entire 
history of the United States has ever declared 
against it, and no party in this campaign has had 
the temerity to oppose it. Three parties — the Dem- 
ocratic, Populist and Silver parties — have not only 
declared for bimetalism, but have outlined the 
specific legislation necessary to restore silver to its 
ancient position by the side of gold. The Republi- 
can platform expressly declares that bimetalism is 
desirable when it pledges the Republican party to 
aid in securing it as soon as the assistance of certain 
foreign nations can be obtained. Those who rep- 
resented the minority sentiment in the Chicago 
Convention opposed the free coinage of silver by 
the United States by independent action, on the 
ground that, in their judgment, it "would retard 
or entirely prevent the establishment of interna- 
tional bimetalism, to which the efforts of the Gov- 
ernment should be steadily directed." When they 
asserted that the efforts of the Government should 
be steadily directed toward the establishment of 
international bimetalism, they condemned mono- 
metalism. The gold standard has been v/eighed in 
the balance and found wanting. Take from it the 
powerful support of the money-owning and the 
money-changing classes and it cannot stand for one 



253 BRYAN'S 'SPEECHES 

day in any nation in the world. It was fastened 
upon the United States without discussion before 
the people, and its friends have never yet been will- 
ing to risk a verdict before the voters upon that 
issue. 

There can be no sympathy or cooperation between 
the advocates of a universal gold standard and the 
advocates of bimetalism. Between bimetalism — 
whether independent or international — and the gold 
standard there is an impassable gulf. Is this quad- 
rennial agitation in favor of international bimetal- 
ism conducted in good faith, or do our opponents 
really desire to maintain the gold standard per- 
manently? Are they willing to confess the superi- 
ority of a double standard when joined in by the 
leading nations of the world, or do they still insist 
that gold is the only metal suitable for standard 
money among civilized nations? If they are in 
fact desirous of securing bimetalism, w^e may expect 
them to point out the evils of a gold standard and 
defend bimetalism as a system. If, on the other 
hand, they are bending their energies toward the 
permanent establishment of a gold standard under 
cover of a declaration in favor of international 
bimetalism, I am justifiel in suggesting that honest 
money cannot be expected at the hands of those 
who deal dishonestly with the American people. 

What is the test of honesty in money? It must 
certainly be found in the purchasing power of the 
dollar. An absolutely honest dollar would not vary 
in its general purchasing power ; it would be abso- 
lutely stable when measured by average prices. A 
dollar which increases in purchasing power is just 



THE SILVER QUESTION 259 

as dishonest as a dollar which decreases in pur- 
chasing power. Prof. Laughlin, now of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, and one of the highest gold- 
standard authorities, in his work on bimetalism not 
only admits that gold does not remain absolutely 
stable in value, but expressly asserts "that there is 
no such thing as a standard of value for future 
payments, either in gold or silver, which remains 
absolutely invariable.'^ He even suggests that a 
multiple standard, wherein the unit is ''based upon 
the selling prices of a number of articles of general 
consumption," would be a more just standard than 
either gold or silver, or both, because "a long time 
contract would thereby be paid at its maturity by 
the same purchasing power as was given in the be- 
ginning. " 

It cannot be successfully claimed that mono- 
metalism or bimetalism, or any other system, gives 
an absolutely just standard of value. Under both 
monometalism and bimetalism the Government fixes 
the weight and fineness of the dollar, invests it with 
legal tender qualities, and then opens the mints to 
its unrestricted coinage, leaving the purchasing 
power of the dollar to be determined by the num- 
ber of dollars. Bimetalism is better than mono- 
metalism, not because it gives us a perfect dollar — 
that is, a dollar absolutely unvarying in its gen- 
eral purchasing power — but because it makes a 
nearer approach to stability, to honesty, to justice, 
than a gold standard possibly can. Prior to 1873, 
when there were enough open mints to permit all 
the gold and silver available for coinage to find 
entrance into the w^orld's volume of standard 



260 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

money, the United States might have maintained a 
gold standard with less injury to the people of this 
country ; but now, when each step toward a univer- 
sal gold standard enhances the purchasing power 
of gold, depresses prices, and transfers to the pock- 
ets of the creditor class an unearned increment, the 
influence of this great nation must not be thrown 
upon the side of gold unless we are prepared to 
accept the natural and legitimate consequences of 
such an act. Any legislation which lessens the 
world's stock of standard money increases the ex- 
changeable value of the dollar; therefore, the cru- 
sade against silver must inevitably raise the pur- 
chasing power of money and lower the money value 
of all other forms of property. 

Our opponents sometimes admit that it was a 
mistake to demonetize silver, but insist that we 
should submit to present conditions rather than 
return to the bimetalic system. They err in sup- 
posing that we have reached the end of the evil 
results of a gold standard ; we have not reached the 
end. The injury is a continuing one, and no per- 
son can say how long the world is to suffer from 
the attempt to make gold the only standard money. 
The same influences which are now operating to 
destroy silver in the United States will, if successful 
here, be turned against other silver-using countries, 
and each new convert to the gold standard will add 
to the general distress. So long as the scramble 
for gold continues, prices must fall, and a general 
fall in prices is but another definition of hard 
times. 

Our opponents, while claiming entire disinter- 



THE SILVER QUESTION 261 

esteclness for themselves, have appealed to the self- 
ishness of nearh' every class of society. Recogniz- 
ing the disposition of the individual voter to con- 
sider the effect of any proposed legislation upon 
himself, we present to the American people the 
financial policy' outlined in the Chicago platform, 
believing that it will result in the greatest good to 
the greatest number. 

The farmers are opposed to the gold standard 
because they have felt its effects. Since they sell at 
wholesale and buy at retail they have lost more than 
they have gained by falling prices, and, besides 
this, they have found that certain fixt charges have 
not fallen at all. Taxes have not been perceptibly 
decreased, altho it requires more of farm products 
now than formerly to secure the money with which 
to pay taxes. Debts have not fallen. The farmer 
who owed $1,000 is still compelled to pay $1,000, 
altho it may be twice as difficult as formerly to 
obtain the dollars with which to pay the debt. 
Railroad rates have not been reduced to keep pace 
with falling prices, and besides these items there are 
many more. The farmer has thus found it more 
and more difficult to live. Has he not a just com- 
plaint against the gold standard? 

The wage earners have been injured by a gold 
standard, and have exprest themselves upon the 
subject with great emphasis. In February, 1895, 
a petition asking for the immediate restoration of 
the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver 
at 16 to 1 was signed by the representatives of all, 
or nearly all, the leading labor organizations and 
presented to Congress. Wage-earners know that 



262 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

while a gold standard raises the purchasing power 
of the dollar, it also makes it more difficult to obtain 
possession of the dollar; they know that employ- 
ment is less permanent, loss of work more probable, 
and reemployment less certain. A gold standard 
encourages the hoarding of money, because money 
is rising; it also discourages enterprise and para- 
lyzes industry. On the other hand, the restoration 
of bimetalism will discourage hoarding because, 
when prices are steady or rising, money cannot 
afford to lie idle in the bank vaults. The farmers 
and wage-earners together constitute a considerable 
majority of the people of the country. Why should 
their interests be ignored in considering financial 
legislation? A monetary system which is pecu- 
niarily advantageous to a few syndicates has far 
less to commend it than a system which would give 
hope and encouragement to those who create the 
nation 's wealth. 

Our opponents have made a special appeal to 
those who hold fire and life insurance policies, but 
these policy-holders know that, since the total pre- 
miums received exceed the total losses paid, a 
rising standard must be of more benefit to the com- 
panies than to the policy-holders. 

]\Iuch solicitude has been exprest by our oppo- 
nents for the depositors in savings banks. They 
constantly parade before these depositors the ad- 
vantages of a gold standard, but these appeals will 
"be in vain, because savings bank depositors know 
that under a gold standard there is increasing dan- 
ger that they will lose their deposits because of the 
inability of the banks to collect their assets; and 



THE SIL\^p]R QUESTION 263 

they still further know that, if the gold standard is 
to continue indefinitely, they may be compelled to 
withdraw their deposits in order to pay living ex* 
penses. 

It is only necessary to note the increasing num- 
ber of failures in order to know that a gold stand- 
ard is ruinous to merchants and manufacturers. 
These business men do not make their profits from 
the people from whom they borrow money, but 
from the people to whom they sell their goods. If 
the people cannot buy, retailers cannot sell, and, if 
retailers cannot sell, wholesale merchants and man- 
ufacturers must go into bankruptcy. 

Those who hold, as a permanent investment, the 
stock of railroads and of other enterprises — I do not 
include those who speculate in stocks or use stock 
holdings as a means of obtaining an inside advant- 
age in construction contracts — are injured by a gold 
standard. The rising dollar destroys the earning' 
power of these enterprises without reducing their 
liabilities, and, as dividends cannot be paid until 
salaries and fixt charges have been satisfied, the 
stockholders must bear the burden of hard times. 

Salaries in business occupations depend upon 
business conditions, and the gold standard both 
lessens the amount and threatens the permanency 
of such salaries. 

Official salaries, except the salaries of those who 
hold office for life, must, in the long run, be adjusted 
to the conditions of those who pay the taxes, and if 
the present financial policy continues we must ex- 
pect the contest between the taxpayer and the tax- 
eater to increase in bitterness. 



264 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

The professional classes — in the main — derive 
their support from the producing classes, and can 
only enjoy prosperity when there is prosperity 
among those who create wealth. 

I have not attempted to describe the effect of the 
gold standard upon all classes — in fact, I have 
only had time to mention a few — but each person 
will be able to apply the principles stated to his 
own occupation. 

It must also be remembered that it is the desire 
of people generally to convert their earnings into 
real or personal property. This being true, in con- 
sidering any temporary advantage which may come 
from a system under which the dollar rises in its 
purchasing power, it must not be forgotten that the 
dollar cannot buy more than formerly unless prop- 
erty sells for less than formerly. Hence, it will be 
seen that a large portion of those who may find 
some pecuniary advantage in a gold standard will 
discover that their losses exceed their gains. 

It is sometimes asserted by our opponents that a 
bank belongs to the debtor class, but this is not true 
of any solvent bank. Every statement published 
by a solvent bank shows that the assets exceed the 
liabilities. That is to say, while the bank owes a 
large amount of money to its depositors, it not only 
has enough on hand in money and notes to pay its 
depositors, but, in addition thereto, has enough to 
cover its capital and surplus. When the dollar is 
rising in value slowly, a bank may, by making 
short-time loans and taking good security, avoid 
loss; but when prices are falling rapidly, the bank 
is apt to lose more because of bad debts than it can 



THE SILVER QUESTION 265 

gain by the increase in the purchasing power of its 
capital and surplus. 

Some bankers, however, combine the business of 
a bond broker with the ordinary banking business, 
and these may make enough in the negotiation of 
loans to offset the losses arising in legitimate bank- 
ing business. As long as human nature remains as 
it is, there will always be danger that, unless re- 
strained by public opinion or legal enactment, those 
who see a pecuniary profit for themselves in a cer- 
tain condition may yield to the temptation to bring 
about that condition. Jefferson has stated that one 
of the main duties of government is to prevent men 
from injuring one another, and never was that duty 
more important than it is to-day. It is not strange 
that those who have made a profit by furnishing 
gold to the Government in the hour of its extremity 
favor a financial policy which will keep the Gov- 
ernment dependent upon them. I believe, however, 
that I speak the sentiment of the vast majority of 
the people of the United States when I say that a 
wise financial policy administered in behalf of all 
the people would make our Government independ- 
ent of any combination of financiers, foreign or 
domestic. 

Let me say a word, now, in regard to certain per- 
sons who are pecuniarily benefited by a gold stand- 
ard, and Vv^ho favor it, not from a desire to trespass 
upon the rights of others, but because the circum- 
stances which surround them blind them to the 
effect of the gold standard upon others. I shall ask 
you to consider the language of two gentlemen 
whose long public service and high standing in the 

121 



266 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

party to which they belong will protect them from 
adverse criticism by our opponents. In 1869 Sena- 
tor Sherman said : 

"The contraction of the currency is a far more distressing 
operation than Senators suppose. Our own and other nations 
have gone through that operation before. It is not possible 
to take that voyage without the sorest distress. To every 
person, except a capitalist out of debt, or a salaried officer, 
or annuitant, it is a period of loss, danger, lassitude of trade, 
fall of wages, suspension of enterprise, bankruptcy and dis- 
aster. It means ruin to all dealers whose debts are twice 
their busines capital, tho one-third less than their actual 
property. It means the fall of all agricultural production 
•without any great reduction of taxes What prudent man 
^ould dare to build a house, a railroad, a factory, or a barn 
with this certain fact before him?" 

As I have said before, the salaried officer referred 
to must be the man whose salary is fixt for life, and 
not the man whose salary depends upon business 
conditions. When Mr. Sherman describes contrac- 
tion of the currency as disastrous to all the people 
except the capitalist out of debt and those who 
stand in a position similar to his, he is stating a 
truth which must be apparent to every person who 
will give the matter careful consideration. Mr. 
Sherman was at that time speaking of the contrac- 
tion of the volume of paper currency, but the prin- 
ciple which he set forth applies, if there is a con- 
traction of the volume of the standard money of the 
world. 

Mr. Blaine discust the same principle in connec- 
tion with the demonetization of silver. Speaking 
in the House of Representatives on the 7th of Feb- 
ruary, 1878, he said : 

"I believe the struggle now going on in this country and 
other countries for a single gold standard would, if success- 



THE SILVER QUESTION 267 

ful, produce widespread disaster in and throughout the ooin- 
mercial world. The destruction of silver as money, and the 
establishing of gold as the sole unit of value must have a 
ruinous effect on all forms of property, except those invest- 
ments which yield a fixt return in money. These would be 
enormously enhanced in value, and would gain a dispropor- 
tionate and unfair advantage over every other species of 
property." 

It is strange that the ''holders of investments 
which yield a fixt return in money" can regard 
the destruction of silver with complacency. May 
we not expect the holders of other forms of prop- 
erty to protest against giving to money a "dis- 
proportionate and unfair advantage over every 
other species of property?" If the relatively few 
whose wealth consists largely in fixt investments 
have a right to use the ballot to enhance the value 
of their investments, have not the rest of the people 
the right to use the ballot to protect themselves 
from the disastrous consequences of a rising stand- 
ard? The people who must purchase money with 
the products of toil stand in a position entirely dif- 
ferent from the position of those who own money 
or receive a fixt income. The well-being of the na- 
tion — aye, of civilization itself — depends upon the 
prosperity of the masses. What shall it profit us to 
have a dollar which grows more valuable every day 
if such a dollar lowers the standard of civilization 
and brings distress to the people? "What shall it 
profit us if, in trying to raise our credit by increas- 
ing the purchasing power of our dollar, we destroy 
our ability to pay the debts already contracted by 
lowering the purchasing power of the products with 
which those debts must be paid? If it is asserted, 



268 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

as it constantly is asserted, that the gold standard 
will enable us to borrow more money from abroad, 
I reply that the restoration of bimetalism will re- 
store the parity between money and property, and 
thus permit an era of prosperity which will enable 
the American people to become loaners of money 
instead of perpetual borrowers. Even if we desire 
to borrow, how long can we continue borrowing 
under a system which, by lowering the value of 
property, weakens the foundation upon which credit 
rests ? 

Even the holders of fixt investments, tho they 
gain an advantage from the appreciation of the 
dollar, certainly see the injustice of the legislation 
w^hicli gives them this advantage over those whose 
incomes depend upon the value of property and 
products. If the holders of fixt investments will not 
listen to arguments based upon justice and equit3% 
I appeal to them to consider the interests of pos- 
terity. "We do not live for ourselves alone; our 
labor, our self-denial, and our anxious care — all 
these are for those who are to come after us as 
much as for ourselves, but we cannot protect our 
children beyond the period of our lives. Let tho:;e 
who are now reaping advantage from a vicious 
financial system remember that in the years to come 
their own children and their children's children 
may, through the operation of this same system, be 
made to pay tribute to the descendants of those who 
are wronged to-day. 

As against the maintenance of a gold standard, 
either permanently or until other nations can be 
united for its overthrow, the Chicago platform 



THE SILVER QUESTION 269 

presents a clear and emphatic demand for the im- 
mediate restoration of the free and unlimited coin- 
age of silver and gold at the present legal ratio of 
16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of 
any other nation. We are not asking that a new 
' experiment be tried ; we are insisting upon a return 
to a financial policy approved by the experience 
of history and supported by all the prominent 
statesmen of our nation from the days of the first 
President down to 1873. When we ask that our 
mints be opened to the free and unlimited coinage 
of silver into full legal tender money, we are simply 
asking that the same mint privileges be accorded to 
silver that are now accorded to gold. When we ask 
that this coinage be at the ratio of 16 to 1, we simply 
ask that our gold coins and the standard silver dol- 
lar — which, be it remembered, contains the same 
amount of pure silver as the first silver dollar 
coined at our mints — retain their present weight 
and fineness. 

The theoretical advantage of the bimetalic system 
is best stated by a European writer on political 
economy, who suggests the following illustration: 
A river fed from two sources is more uniform in 
volume than a river fed from one source — the rea- 
son being that when one of the feeders is swollen the 
other may be low; whereas, a river which has but 
one feeder must rise or fall with that feeder. So in 
the case of bimetalism; the volume of metalic 
money receives contributions from both the gold 
mines and the silver mines, and therefore varies 
less, and the dollar resting upon two metals is less 



270 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

changeable in its purchasing power than the dollai? 
which rests upon one metal only. 

If there are two kinds of money, the option must 
rest either with the debtor or with the creditor. 
Assuming that their rights are equal, we must look 
at the interest of society in general in order to de- 
termine to which side the option should be given. 
Under the bimetalic system gold and silver are 
linked together by law at a fixt ratio, and any per- 
son or persons owning any quantity of either metal 
can have the same converted into full legal-tender 
money. If the creditor has the right to choose the 
metal in which payment shall be made, it is rea- 
sonable to suppose that he will require the debtor 
to pay in the dearer metal if there is any percepti- 
ble difference between the bullion values of the 
metals. This new demand created for the dearer 
metal will make that metal dearer still, while the 
decreased demand for the cheaper metal will make 
that metal cheaper still. If, on the other hand, the 
debtor exercises the option, it is reasonable to sup- 
pose that he will pay in the cheaper metal if one 
metal is perceptibly cheaper than the other; but 
the demand thus created for the cheaper metal will 
raise its price, while the lessened demand for the 
dearer metal will lower its price. In other words^ 
when the creditor has the option, the metals are 
drawn apart; whereas, when the debtor has the 
option, the metals are held together approximately 
at the ratio fixed by law, provided the demand cre- 
ated is sufficient to absorb all of both metals pre- 
sented at the mint. Society is, therefore, interested 
in having the option exercised by the debtor. In- 



THE SILVER QUESTION 271 

deed, there can be no such thing as real bimetal ism 
unless the option is exercised by the debtor. The 
exercise of the option by the debtor compels the 
creditor classes, whether domestic or foreign, to 
exert themselves to maintain the parity between 
gold and silver at the legal ratio, whereas they 
might find a profit in driving one of the metals to a 
premium if they could then demand the dearer 
metal. The right of the debtor to choose the coin 
in which payment shall be made extends to obliga- 
tions due from the government as well as to con- 
tracts between individuals. A government obliga- 
tion is simply a debt due from all the people to one 
of the people, and it is impossible to justify a policy 
which makes the interests of the one person who 
holds the obligation superior to the rights of the 
many who must be taxed to pay it. When, prior 
to 1873, silver was at a premium, it was never con- 
tended that national honor required the payment 
of government obligations in silver, and the Mat- 
thews resolution, adopted by Congress in 1878, 
expressly asserted the right of the United States 
to redeem coin obligations in standard silver dol- 
lars as well as in gold coin. 

Upon this subject the Chicago platform reads: 

"We are opposed to the policy and practise of surren- 
dering to the holders of the obligations of the United States 
the option reserved by law to the Government of redeeming 
such obligations in either silver coin or gold coin." 

It is constantly assumed by some that the United 
States notes, commonly called greenbacks, and the 
treasury notes issued under the act of 1890, are 
responsible for the recent drain upon the gold re- 



272 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

serve, but tliis assumption is entirely without foun- 
dation. Secretary Carlisle appeared before the 
House Committee on Appropriations on January 
21, 1895, and I quote from the printed report of his 
testimony before the committee: 

"Mr. Sibley : I would like to ask you (perhaps not en- 
tirely connected with the matter under discussion) what ob- 
jection there could be to having the option of redeeming 
either in silver or gold lie with the Treasury instead of the 
note holder? 

"Secretary Carlisle : If that policy had been adopted at 
the beginning of resumption — and I am not saying this for 
the purpose of criticizing the action of any of my prede- 
cessors, or anybody else — but if the policy of reserving to 
the Government, at the beginning of resumption, the option 
of redeeming in gold or silver all its paper presented, I be- 
lieve it would have worked beneficially, and there would 
have been no trouble growing out of it, but the Secretaries 
of the Treasury from the beginning of resumption have pur- 
sued a policy of redeeming in gold or silver, at the option 
of the holder of the paper, and if any Secretary had after- 
ward attempted to change that policy and force silver upon 
a man who wanted gold, or gold upon a man who wanted 
silver, and especially if he had made that attempt at such a 
critical period as we have had in the last two years, my judg- 
ment is it would have been very disastrous." 

I do not agree with the Secretary that it was 
wise to follow a bad precedent, but from his answer 
it will be seen that the fault does not lie with the 
greenbacks and treasury notes, but rather with the 
executive officers who have seen fit to surrender a 
right which should have been exercised for the pro- 
tection of the interests of the people. This execu- 
tive action has already been made the excuse for 
the issue of more than $250,000,000 in bonds, and 
it is impossible to estimate the amount of bonds 
which may hereafter be issued if this policy is con- 
tinued. We are told that any attempt upon the 



THE SILVER QUESTION 273 

part of the Government at this time to redeem its 
obligations in silver would put a premium upon 
gold, but why should it? The Bank of France 
exercises the right to redeem all bank paper in 
either gold or silver, and yet Prance maintains the 
parity between gold and silver at the ratio of 15>^ 
to 1, and retains in circulation more silver per 
capita than we do in the United States. 

It may be further answered that our opponents 
have suggested no feasible plan for avoiding the 
dangers which they fear. The retirement of the 
greenbacks and treasury notes would not protect the 
Treasury, because the same policy which now leads 
the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem all Gov- 
ernment paper in gold, when gold is demanded, will 
require the redemption of all silver dollars and sil- 
ver certificates in gold, if the greenbacks and treas- 
ury notes are withdrawn from circulation. More 
than this, if the Government should retire its paper 
and throw upon the banks the necessity of fur- 
nishing coin redemption, the banks would exercise 
the right to furnish either gold or silver. In other 
words, they would exercise the option, just as the 
Government ought to exercise it now. The Gov- 

- ernment must either exercise the right to redeem 
its obligations in silver when silver is more con- 
venient, or it must retire all the silver and silver 
certificates from circulation and leave nothing but 
gold as legal tender money. Are our opponents 

- willing to outline a financial system which will carry 
out their policy to its legitimate conclusion, or will 
they continue to cloak their designs in ambiguous 
phrases ? 



274 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

There is an actual necessity for bimetalism as 
well as a theoretical defense of it. During the last 
twenty-three years legislation has been creating an 
additional demand for gold, and this law-created 
demand has resulted in increasing the purchasing 
power of each ounce of gold. The restoration of 
bimetalism in the United States will take away from 
gold just so much of its purchasing power as was 
added to it by the demonetization of silver by the 
United States. The silver dollar is now held up to 
the gold dollar by legal-tender laws and not by 
redemption in gold, because the standard silver dol- 
lars are not now redeemable in gold either in law or 
b^^ administrative policy. 

We contend that free and unlimited coinage by 
the United States alone will raise the bullion value 
of silver to its coinage value, and thus make silver 
bullion worth $1.29 per ounce in gold throughout 
the world. This proposition is in keeping with 
natural laws, not in defiance of them. The best 
known law of commerce is the law of supply and 
demand. We recognize this law and build our argu- 
ment upon it. We apply this law to money when 
we say that a reduction in the volume of money 
will raise the purchasing power of the dollar; we 
also apply the law of supply and demand to silver 
when we say that a new demand for silver created 
by law will raise the price of silver bullion. Gold 
and silver are different from other commodities, in 
that they are limited in quantity. Corn, wheat, 
manufactured products, etc., can be produced 
almost without limit, provided they can be sold at 
a price sufficient to stimulate production, but gold 



THE SILVER QUESTION 275 

and silver are called precious metals because they 
are found, not produced. These metals have been 
the objects of anxious search as far back as history 
runs, yet, according to Mr. Harvey's calculation, 
all the gold coin of the world can be melted into a 
22-foot cube and all the silver coin in the world into 
a 66-foot cube. Because gold and silver are limited, 
both in the quantity now in hand and in annual 
production, it follows that legislation can fix the 
ratio between them. Any purchaser who stands 
ready to take the entire supply of any given article 
at a certain price can prevent that article from 
falling below that price. So the Government can 
fix a price for gold and silver by creating a demand 
greater than the supply. International bimetalists 
believe that several nations, by entering into an 
agreement to coin at a fixt ratio all the gold and sil- 
ver presented, can maintain the bullion value of the 
metals at the mint ratio. When a mint price is thus 
established, it regulates the bullion price, because 
any person desiring coin may have the bullion con- 
verted into coin at that price, and any person de- 
siring bullion can secure it by melting the coin. 
The only question upon which international bimet- 
alists and independent bimetalists differ is : Can the 
United States, by the free and unlimited coinage 
of silver at the present legal ratio, create a demand 
for silver which, taken in connection with the de- 
mand alreadj^ in existence, will be sufficient to 
utilize all the silver that will be presented at the 
mints ? They agree in their defense of the bimetalic 
principle, and they agree in unalterable opposi- 
tion to the gold standard. International bimetalists 



276 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

cannot complain that free coinage gives a benefit 
to the mine owner, because international bimetalism 
gives to the owner of silver all the advantages 
offered by independent bimetalism at the same 
ratio. International bimetalists cannot accuse the 
advocates of free silver of being ''bullion owners 
who desire to raise the value of their bullion"; or 
''debtors who desire to pay their debts in cheap 
dollars " ; or " demagogues who desire to curry favor 
with the people. ' ' They must rest their opposition 
upon one ground only, namely: that the supply of 
silver available for coinage is too large to be utilized 
by the United States. 

In discussing this question we must consider the 
capacity of our people to use silver, and the quan- 
tity of silver which can come to our mints. It must 
be remembered that we live in a country only par- 
tially developed, and that our people far surpass 
any equal number of people in the world in their 
power to consume and produce. Our extensive rail- 
road development and enormous internal commerce 
must also be taken into consideration. Now, how 
much silver can come here? Not the coined silver 
of the world, because almost all of it is more valu- 
able at this time in other lands than it will be at our 
mints under free coinage. If our mints are opened 
to free and unlimited coinage at the present ratio, 
merchandise silver cannot come here, because the 
labor applied to it has made it worth more in the 
form of merchandise than it will be worth at our 
mints. We cannot even expect all of the annual 
product of silver, because India, China, Japan, 
Mexico, a'nd all the other silver-using countries must 



THE SILVER QUESTION 277 

satisfy their annual needs from the annual pro- 
duct ; the arts will require a large amount, and the 
gold standard countries will need a considerable 
quantity for subsidiary coinage. We will be re- 
quired to coin only that which is not needed else- 
where; but, if we stand ready to take and utilize 
all of it, other nations will be compelled to buy at 
the price which we fix. Many fear that the opening 
of our mints will be followed by an enormous in- 
crease in the annual production of silver. This is 
conjecture. Silver has been used as money for thou- 
sands of years, and during all that time the world 
has never suffered from an over-production. If, 
for any reason, the supply of gold or silver in the 
future ever exceeds the requirements of the arts 
and the needs of commerce, we confidently hope that 
the intelligence of the people will be sufficient to 
devise and enact any legislation necessary for the 
protection of the public. It is folly to refuse to the 
people the money which they now need for fear they 
may hereafter have more than they need. I am 
firmly convinced that by opening our mints to the 
free and unlimited coinage at the present ratio we 
can create a demand for silver which will keep the 
price of silver bullion at $1.29 per ounce, measured 
by gold. 

Some of our opponents attribute the fall in the 
value of silver, when measured by gold, to the fact 
that during the last quarter of a century the world 's 
supply of silver has increased more rapidly than 
the world's supply of gold. This argument is en- 
tirely answered by the fact that, during the last 
five years, the annual production of gold has in- 



278 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

creased more rapidly than the annual production of 
silver. Since the gold price of silver has fallen more 
during these five years than it ever fell in any pre- 
vious five years in the history of the world, it is 
evident that the fall is not due to increased pro- 
duction. Prices can be lowered as effectually by de- 
creasing the demand for an article as by increasing 
the supply of it, and it seems certain that the fall 
in the gold price of silver is due to hostile legisla- 
tion and not to natural laws. 

In answer to the charge that gold will go abroad 
under free coinage, it must be remembered that no 
gold can leave this country until the owner of the 
gold receives something in return for it which he 
would rather have. In other words, when gold 
leaves the country those who formerly owned it will 
be benefited. There is no process by which we can 
be compelled to part with our gold against our 
will, nor is there any process by which silver can be 
forced upon us without our consent. Exchanges are 
matters of agreement, and if silver comes to this 
country under free coinage it will be at the invita- 
tion of some one in this country who will give some- 
thing in exchange for it. 

Our opponents cannot ignore the fact that gold is 
now going abroad in spite of all legislation intended 
to prevent it, and no silver is being coined to take 
its place. Not only is gold going abroad now, but 
it must continue to go abroad as long as the pres- 
ent financial policy is adhered to, unless we con- 
tinue to borrow from across the ocean, and even 
then we simply postpone the evil, because the 
amount borrowed, together with interest upon it, 



THE SILVER QUESTION 279 

must be repaid in appreciating dollars. The Ameri- 
can people now owe a large sum to European cred- 
itors, and falling prices have left a larger and 
larger margin between our net national income and 
our annual interest charge. There is only one way 
to stop the increasing flow of gold from our shores, 
and that is to stop falling prices. The restoration 
of bimetalism will not only stop falling prices, but 
will — to some extent — restore prices by reducing 
the world's demand for gold. If it is argued that 
a rise in prices lessens the value of the dollars 
which we pay to our creditors, I reply that, in the 
balancing of equities, the American people have as 
much right to favor a financial system which will 
maintain or restore prices as foreign creditors have 
to insist upon a financial system that will reduce 
prices. But the interests of society are far superior 
to the interests of either debtors or creditors, and 
the interests of society demand a financial system 
which wdll add to the volume of the standard money 
of the world, and thus restore stability to prices. 

Perhaps the most persistent misrepresentation 
that we have to meet is the charge that we are 
advocating the payment of debts in fifty-cent dol- 
lars. At the present time and under present laws 
a silver dollar, when melted, loses nearly half its 
value, but that will not be true when we again 
establish a mint price for silver and leave no surplus 
silver upon the market to drag down the price of 
bullion. Under bimetalism silver bullion will be 
worth as much as silver coin, just as gold bullion 
is now worth as much as gold coin, and we believe 



280 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

that a silver dollar will be worth as much as a gold 
dollar. 

The charge of repudiation comes with poor grace 
from those who are seeking to add to the weight 
of existing debts by legislation which makes money 
dearer, and who conceal their designs against the 
general welfare under the euphonious pretense that 
they are upholding public credit and national 
honor. 

Those who deny the ability of the United States 
to maintain the parity between gold and silver at 
the present legal ratio without foreign aid point to 
]\Iexico and assert that the opening of our mints 
will reduce us to a silver basis and raise gold to a 
premium. It is no reflection upon our sister re- 
public to remind our people that the United States 
is much greater than Mexico in area, in population, 
and in commercial strength. It is absurd to assert 
that the United States is not able to do anything 
which Mexico has failed to accomplish. The one 
thing necessary in order to maintain the parity is 
to furnish a demand great enough to utilize all the 
silver which will come to the mints. That Mexico 
has failed to do this is not proof that the United 
States would also fail. 

It is also argued that, since a number of the na- 
tions have demonetized silver, nothing can be done 
until all of those nations restore bimetalism. This 
is also illogical. It is immaterial how many or how 
few nations have opened mints, provided there are 
sufficient open mints to furnish a monetary demand 
for all the gold and silver available for coinage. 

In reply to the argument that improved ma- 



THE SILVER QUESTION 281 

chinery has lessened the cost of producing silver, it 
is sufficient to say that the same is true of the pro- 
duction of gold, and yet, notwithstanding that, gold 
has risen in value. As a matter of fact, the cost of 
production does not determine the value of the 
precious metals, except as it may affect the supply. 
If, for instance, the cost of producing gold should 
be reduced ninety per cent, without any increase 
in the output, the purchasing power of an ounce of 
gold W'Ould not fall. So long as there is a mone- 
tary demand sufficient to take at a fixt mint price 
all the gold and silver produced, the cost of produc- 
tion need not be considered. 

It is often objected that the prices of gold and 
silver cannot be fixt in relation to each other, be- 
cause of the variation in the relative production of 
the metals. This argument also overlooks the fact 
that, if the demand for both metals at a fixt price 
is greater than the supply of both, relative produc- 
tion becomes immaterial. In the early part of the 
present century the annual production of silver was 
worth, at the coinage ratio, about three times as 
much as the annual production of gold; whereas, 
soon after 1849, the annual production of gold be- 
came worth about three times as much, at the coin- 
age ratio, as the annual production of silver; and 
yet, owing to the maintenance of the bimetalic 
standard, these enormous changes in relative pro- 
duction had but a slight effect upon the relative 
values of the metals. 

If it is asserted by our opponents that the free 
coinage of silver is intended only for the benefit of 
the mine owners, it must be remembered that free 

122 



282 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

coinage cannot restore to the mine owners any more 
than demonetization took away ; and it must also be 
remembered that the loss which the demonetization 
of silver has brought to the mine owners is insig- 
nificant compared to the loss which this policy has 
brought to the rest of the people. The restoration 
of silver will bring to the people generally many 
times as much advantage as the mine owners can. 
obtain from it. While it is not the purpose of free 
coinage to specially aid any particular class, yet 
those who believe that the restoration of silver is 
needed by the whole people should not be deterred 
because an incidental benefit will come to the mine 
owner. The erection of forts, the deepening of har- 
bors, the improvement of rivers, the erection of 
public buildings — all these confer incidental bene- 
fits upon individuals and communities, and yet these 
incidental benefits do not deter us from making ap- 
propriations for these purposes whenever such ap- 
propriations are necessary for the public good. 

The argument that a silver dollar is heavier than 
a gold dollar, and that, therefore, silver is less con- 
venient to carry in large quantities, is completely 
answered by the silver certificate, which is as easily 
carried as the gold certificate or any other kind of 
paper money. 

There are some who, while admitting the benefits 
of bimetalism, object to coinage at the present ratio. 
If any are deceived by this objection they ought to 
remember that there are no bimetalists who are 
earnestly endeavoring to secure it at any other ratio 
than 16 to 1. We are opposed to any change in the 
ratio for two reasons : first, because a change would 



I'HE SILVER QUP^STIOX 283 

produce great injustice; and, second, because a 
change in the ratio is not necessary. A change would 
produce injustice because, if effected in the manner 
usually suggested, it would result in an enormous 
contraction in the volume of standard money. 

If, for instance, it was decided by international 
agreement to raise the ratios throughout the world 
to 32 to 1, the change might be effected in any one 
of three ways: the silver dollar could be double in 
size, so that the new silver dollar would weigh 
thirty-two times as much as the present gold dol- 
lar ; or the present gold dollar could be reduced one- 
half in weight, so that the present silver dollar 
would weigh thirty-two times as much as the new 
gold dollar ; or the change could be made by in- 
creasing the size of the silver dollar and decreasing 
the size of the gold dollar until the new silver dollar 
would weigh thirty-two times as much as the new 
gold dollar. Those who have advised a change in 
the ratio have usually suggested that the silver dol- 
lar be doubled. If this change were made it would 
necessitate the recoinage of four billions of silver 
into two billions of dollars. There would be an im- 
mediate loss of two billions of dollars either to in- 
dividuals or to the Government, but this would be 
the least of the injury. A shrinkage of one-half in 
the silver money of the world would mean a shrink- 
age of one-fourth in the total volume of metalic 
money. This contraction, by increasing the value 
of the dollar, would virtually increase the debts of 
the world billions of dollars, and decrease still more 
the value of the property of the world as measured 
by dollars. Besides this immediate result, such a 



284 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

change in the ratio would permanently decrease the 
annual addition to the world's supply of money ^ 
because the annual silver product, when coined into 
dollars twice as large, would make only half as 
many dollars. 

The people of the United States would be injured 
by a change in the ratio, not because they produce 
silver, but because they own property and owe 
debts, and they cannot afford to thus decrease the 
value of their property or increase the burden of 
their debts. 

In 1878 Mr. Carlisle said : 

"Mankind will be fortunate indeed if the annual prd- 
duction of gold and silver coin shall keep pace with the 
annual increase of population and industry." 

I repeat this assertion. All of the gold and silver 
annually available for coinage, when converted inta 
coin at the present ratio, will not, in my judgment, 
more than supply our monetary needs. 

In supporting the act of 1890, known as the Sher- 
man act, Senator Sherman, on June 5 of that year, 
said: 

"Under the law of February, 1878, the purchase of $2,000,- 
000 worth of silver bullion a month has by coinage pro- 
duced annually an average of nearly $3,000,000 per month 
for a period of twelve years, but this amount, in view of 
the retirement of the bank notes, will not increase our cur- 
rency in proportion to our increasing population. If our 
present currency is estimated at $1,400,000,000, and our 
population is increasing at the ratio of 3 per cent, per an- 
num, it would require $42,000,000 increased circulation each 
year to keep pace with the increase of population ; but, as 
the increase of population is accompanied by a still greater 
ratio of increase of wealth and business, it was thought that 
an immediate increase of circulation might be obtained by 
larger purchases of silver bullion to an amount sufficient to* 



THE SILVER QUESTION 285 

make good the retirement of bank notes and keep pace with 
the growth of population. Assuming that $54,000,000 a 
year of additional currency is needed upon this basis, that 
amount is provided for in this bill by the issue of Treasury 
notes in exchange for bullion at the market price." 

If the United States then needed more than forty- 
two millions annually to keep pace with population 
and business, it now, with a larger population, needs 
a still greater annual addition; and the United 
States is only one nation among many. Our op- 
ponents make no adequate provision for the in- 
creasing monetary needs of the w^orld. 

In the second place, a change in the ratio is not 
necessary. Hostile legislation has decreased the de- 
mand for silver and lowered its price when meas- 
ured by gold, while this same hostile legislation, by 
increasing the demand for gold, has raised the value 
of gold when measured by other forms of property. 

We are told that the restoration of bimetalism 
would be a hardship upon those who have entered 
into contracts payable in gold coin, but this is a 
mistake. It will be easier to obtain the gold with 
which to meet a gold contract, when most of the 
people can use silver, than it is now when every 
one is trying to secure gold. 

The Chicago platform expressly declares in favor 
of such legislation as may be necessary to prevent, 
for the future, the demonetization of any kind of 
legal tender money by private contract. Such con- 
tracts are objected to on the ground that they are 
against public policy. No one questions the right 
of legislatures to fix the rate of interest which can 
be collected by law; there is far more reason for 
preventing private individuals from setting aside 



286 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

legal tender law. The money which is by law made 
a legal tender, must, in the course of ordinary busi- 
ness, be accepted by ninety-nine out of every hun- 
dred persons. Why should the one-hundredth man 
be permitted to exempt himself from the general 
rule ? Special contracts have a tendency to increase 
the demand for a particular kind of money, and 
thus force it to a premium. Have not the people 
a right to say that a comparatively few individuals 
shall not be permitted to derange the financial sys- 
tem of the nation in order to collect a premium in 
case they succeed in forcing one kind of money to 
a premium ? 

There is another argument to which I ask your 
attention. Some of the more zealous opponents of 
free coinage point to the fact that thirteen months 
must elapse between the election and the first reg- 
ular session of the next Congress, and assert that 
during that time, in case people declare themselves 
in favor of free coinage, all loans will be withdrawn 
and all mortgages foreclosed. If these are merely 
prophecies indulged in by those who have forgotten 
the provision of the Constitution, it will be sufficient 
to remind them that the President is empowered 
to convene Congress in extraordinary session when- 
ever the public good requires such action. If, in 
November, the people by their ballots declare them^ 
selves in favor of the immediate restoration of bi- 
metalism, the system can be inaugurated within a 
few months. 

If, however, the assertion that loans will be with- 
drawn and mortgages foreclosed is made to prevent 
such political action as the people may believe to 



THE SILVER QUESTION 287 

be necessary for the preservation of their rights, 
then a new and vital issue is raised. Whenever it 
is necessary for the people as a whole to obtain con- 
sent from the owners of money and the changers of 
money before they can legislate upon financial ques- 
tions, we shall have passed from a democracy to a 
plutocracy. But that time has not yet arrived. 
Threats and intimidation will be of no avail. The 
people who, in 1776, rejected the doctrine that 
kings rule hy right divine, will not, in this gene- 
ration subscribe to the doctrine that money is 
omnipotent. 

In conclusion, permit me to say a word in regard 
to international bimetalism. We are not opposed to 
an international agreement looking to the restora- 
tion of bimetalism throughout the world. The advo- 
cates of free coinage have on all occasions shown 
their willingness to cooperate with other nations in 
the reinstatement of silver, but they are not willing 
to await the pleasure of other governments when 
immediate relief is needed by the people of the 
United States, and they further believe that inde- 
pendent action offers better assurance of interna- 
tional bimetalism than servile dependence upon for- 
eign aid. For more than twenty years we have in- 
vited the assistance of European nations, but all 
progress in the direction of international bimetalism 
has been blocked by the opposition of those who 
derive a pecuniary benefit from the appreciation of 
gold. How long must we wait for bimetalism to 
be brought to us by those who profit by monomet- 
alism? If the double standard will bring benefits 
to our people, who will deny them the right to en- 



288 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

joy those benefits? If our opponents would admit 
the right, the ability and the duty of our people 
to act for themselves on all public questions with- 
out the assistance and regardless of the wishes of 
other nations, and then propose the remedial legis- 
lation which they consider sufficient, we could meet 
them in the field of honorable debate; but, when 
they assert that this nation is helpless to protect the 
rights of its own citizens, we challenge them to sub- 
mit the issue to a people whose patriotism has never 
been appealed to in vain. 

We shall not offend other nations when we de- 
clare the right of the American people to govern 
themselves, and, without let or hindrance from 
without, decide upon every question presented for 
their consideration. In taking this position, we 
simply maintain the dignity of seventy million citi- 
zens who are second to none in their capacity for 
self-government . 

The gold standard has compelled the American 
people to pay an ever-increasing tribute to the cred- 
itor nations of the world — a tribute which no one 
dares to defend. I assert that national honor re- 
quires the United States to secure justice for all its 
citizens as well as do justice to all its creditors. 
For a people like ours, blest with natural resources 
of surpassing richness, to proclaim themselves im- 
potent to frame a financial system suited to their 
own needs is humiliating beyond the power of lan- 
guage to describe. We cannot enforce respect for 
our foreign policy so long as we confess ourselves 
unable to frame our own financial policy. 

Honest differences of opinion have always existed, 



THE SILVER QUESTION 289 

and ever will exist, as to the legislation best calcu- 
lated to promote the public weal; but when it is 
seriously asserted that this nation must bow to the 
dictation of other nations and accept the policies 
which they insist upon, the right of self-government 
is assailed, and until that question is settled all 
other questions are insignificant. 

Citizens of New York, I have traveled from the 
center of the continent to the seaboard that I might, 
in the very beginning of the campaign, bring you 
greeting from the people of the West and South 
and assure you that their desire is not to destroy 
but to build up. They invite you to accept the 
principles of a living faith rather than listen to 
those who preach the gospel of despair and advise 
endurance of the ills you have. The advocates of 
free coinage believe that, in striving to secure the 
immediate restoration of bimetalism, they are la- 
boring in your behalf as well as in their own behalf. 
A few of your people may prosper under present 
conditions, but the permanent welfare of New York 
rests upon the producers of wealth. This great city 
is built upon the commerce of the nation and must 
suffer if that commerce is impaired. You cannot 
sell unless the people have money with which to 
buy, and they cannot obtain the money with which 
to buy unless they are able to sell their products 
at remunerative prices. Production of wealth goes 
before the exchange of wealth; those who create 
must secure a profit before they have anything to 
share with others. You cannot afford to join the 
money changers in supporting a financial policy 
which, by destroying the purchasing power of the 



290 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

products of toil, must in the end discourage the 
creation of wealth. 

I ask, I expect, j^our cooperation. It is true -that 
a few of your financiers would fashion a new figure 
— a figure representing Columbia, her hands bound 
fast with fetters of gold and her face turned toward 
the East, appealing for assistance to those who live 
beyond the sea — but this figure can never express 
your idea of this nation. You will rather turn for 
inspiration to the heroic statue which guards the 
entrance to your city — a statue as patriotic in con- 
ception as it is colossal in proportions. It was the 
gracious gift of a sister republic and stands upon a 
pedestal which was built by the American people. 
That figure — Liberty enlightening the world — is 
emblematic of the mission of our nation among the 
nations of the earth. With a government which de- 
rives its powers from the consent of the governed, 
secures to all the people freedom of conscience, free- 
dom of thought and freedom of speech, guarantees 
equal rights to all, and promises special privileges 
to none, the United States should be an example in 
all that is good, and the leading spirit in every 
movement which has for its object the uplifting of 
the human race. 



IX 
THE TARIFF 

Delivered at Des Moines, Ta, on the 21st of August 1908 
and setting forth the party's position m the campaign of , 
that year. 

IN my notification speech I stated that, as the 
campaign progressed, I would discuss the 
question, ''Shall the People Rule," as it ap- 
plies to the various issues involved m this cam- 
paign I begin with the tariff question, because it 
is the most lasting of our economic questions and 
the one upon which the leading parties have most 
frequently opposed each other. Other questions 
may come and go, but questions which affect taxa- 
tion, like Tennyson's "Brook," "go on and on for- 
ever " As the Government is not a Lady 13ounti- 
f ul with unlimited means, but merely an organiza- 
tion which must collect on the one hand what it 
Davs out on the other, the subject of taxation is an 
ever-present one. We may discuss how much we 
should collect, what methods we should employ m 
collecting, and how best to distribute, through ap- 
propriations, the money collected, but we are never 
far removed from the subject of taxation. Iowa 
has been selected for the presentation of what I de- 
sire to say upon this subject, because the Iowa Re^ 
publicans were pioneers in the effort to secure tariff 
revision at the hands of the Republican party. 1 

(291) 



292 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

come among them to define and defend the Demo- 
cratic position on the tariff question, because I be- 
lieve it will commend itself to them. That the issue 
may be clearly stated, I shall read you the Demo- 
cratic plank on this subject, and then the Repub- 
lican plank. 

The Democratic platform says : 

"We welcome the belated promise of tariff reform now 
offered by the Republican party as a tardy recognition of 
the righteousness of the Democratic position on this ques- 
tion ; but the people cannot safely entrust the execution 
of this important work to a party which is so deeply obli- 
gated to the highly protected interests as is the Republi- 
can party. We call attention to the significant fact that 
the promised relief was postponed until after the coming 
election — an election to succeed in which the Republican 
party must have the same support from the beneficiaries 
of the high protective tariff as it has always heretofore 
received from them : and to the further fact that during 
years of uninterrupted power, no action whatever has been 
taken by the Republican congress to correct the admittedly 
existing tariff iniquities. 

"We favor immediate revision of the tariff by the re- 
duction of import duties. Articles entering into competition 
with trust-controlled products should be placed upon the 
free list; material reductions should be made in the tariff 
upon the necessities of life, especially upon articles com- 
peting with such American manufactures as are sold abroad 
more cheaply than at home: and gradual reductions should 
be made in such other schedules as may be necessary to 
restore the tariff to a revenue basis. 

"Existing duties have given the manufacturers! of paper 
a shelter behind which they have organized combinations 
to raise the price of pulp and paper, thus imposing a tax 
upon the spread of knowledge. 

"We demand the immediate repeal of the tariff on wood 
pulp, print paper, lumber, timber and logs, and that these 
articles be placed upon the free list." 

The Republican platform says : 



THE TARIFF 293 

"The Republican party declares unequivocally for a re- 
vision of the tariff by a special session of congress im- 
mediately following the inauguration of the next president 
and commends the steps already taken to this end in the 
work assigned to the appropriate committees of congress, 
which are now investigating the operation and effect of 
existing schedules. In all tariff legislation the true prin- 
ciple of protection is best maintained by the imposition of 
such duties as will equal the difference between the cost 
of production at home and abroad, together with a reason- 
able profit to American industries, 

"We favor the establishment of maximum and minimum 
rates to be administered by the president under limitations 
fixt in the law, the maximum to be available to meet dis- 
criminations by foreign countries against American goods 
entering their markets and the minimum to represent the 
normal measure of protection at home ; the aim and purpose 
of the Republican policy being not only to preserve, with- 
out excessive duties, that security against foreign com- 
petition to which American manufacturers, farmers and 
producers are entitled, but also to maintain the high stand- 
ard of living of the wage-earners of this country, who are 
the most direct beneficiaries of the protective system. 

"Between the United States and the Philippines, we be- 
lieve in a free interchange of products, with such limita- 
tions as to sugar and tobacco as will afford adequate pro- 
tection to domestic interests." 

Secretary Taft refers to this subject briefly in 
his notification speech — only briefly — but as I shall 
quote such passages from his speech as are pertinent 
to this discussion, it is not necessary to read his re- 
marks in full. 

It will be noticed that the Republican party has 
abandoned the earlier arguments advanced in sup- 
port of a high tariff. We hear no more of the ' ' In- 
fant Industries," that must be tenderly cared for 
* ' until they can stand upon their feet ' ' ; there is no 
suggestion that the * ' foreigner pay the tariff, ^ ' and 
nothing about the ''home market." These catch 
phrases have had their day — they are worn out and 



294 BRYAN'S SPEECHEl 

cast aside. The Republican leaders are no longer 
arrogant and insolent; they cannot longer defy 
tariff reform. Their plan now is to seem to yield 
without really yielding. 

I submit that the Democratic platform accurately 
described the Republican position when it refers to 
"the belated promise" made by the Republican 
leaders as " a tardy recognition of the righteousness 
of the Democratic position on this question." The 
Democratic party in its platforms and through its 
representatives in Congress has for years pointed 
out that the tariff schedules are excessively high and 
ought to be reduced, but the Republicans have, un- 
til recently, refused to admit that there was any 
necessity for reduction. They now confess, through 
their platform and through their presidential can- 
didate, that the need for revision is so great as to 
justify the party in declaring "unequivocally for 
a revision of the tariff" and the need is so urgent 
that the work is to be undertaken at "a special ses- 
sion of Congress immediately following the inaugu- 
ration of the next president. ' ' The use of the word 
* ' unequivocally ' ' indicates that those who wrote the 
platform recognize that they are under suspicion. 
They want to distinguish this promise from the 
unkept promises of the past by adding as emphatic 
an adjective as could be found in the dictionary. 
If former Republican promises had been conscien- 
tiously fulfilled, it might not have been necessary to 
thus strengthen the promise made this year. The 
use of the words "immediately after the inaugura- 
tion" is evidence that the Republican leaders are 
conscious that the patience of the public has been 



THE TARIFF 295 

strained to the point of breaking, and it is almost 
pathetic to note the solicitude which they now feel 
about doing a thing which, but for wilful neglect, 
might have been done at any time during the last 
ten years. 

Are we not justified in saying that "the people 
cannot safely entrust the execution of this impor- 
tant work to a party which is so deeply obligated 
to the highly protected interests as is the Repub- 
lican party"? The ''fat-frying" process has be- 
come familiar to the American people. Pressure 
has been brought to bear upon the protected inter- 
ests every four years — and to a less extent in the 
congressional campaigns between presidential elec- 
tions — to compel contributions to the campaign 
fund in return for former favors and in anticipa- 
tion of favors yet to come. It is difficult to over- 
estimate the corrupting influences introduced into 
the political life of the nation by this partnership 
between the Government and the favored industries. 
The literature circulated in support of a protective 
tariff has studiously cultivated the idea that suf- 
frage should be employed to secure pecuniary re- 
turns, and the appeal made by the Republican lead- 
ers has come to be more and more a selfish one. 
Every man engaged in a protected industry has 
been approached with the proposition that it is dol- 
lars in his pocket to maintain the system, while 
those who could not possibly trace any tangible 
benefits to themselves have been beguiled with the 
assurance that it was all a matter of public spirit 
and that they ought to support the system out of 
patriotic love of country. If attention was called 



296 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

to the fact that the farmer was taxed for the benefit 
of the manufacturer, the triple answer was that it 
would come back to him indirectly ; that it did not 
amount to much for each farmer anyhow ; and that 
a man was small minded who could begrudge so in- 
significant a contribution to the nation's prosperity. 
The plan has been to keep the taxpayers quiet by 
keeping them in the dark as to the operation of the 
law, and then to concentrate the votes and influence 
of the tax-eaters in favor of a continuation of high 
tariff legislation. If a tariff of fifty per cent, was 
imposed upon a given article of merchandise, it was 
assumed that those engaged in the production of 
the article would contribute liberally to keep up the 
tariff. It was also assumed that the employees 
would vote with their employers to keep from hav- 
ing their wages reduced, and it was expected that 
the business men of the town would also vote for 
the tariff because of the business brought to the 
community by the protected industry. Those who 
are acquainted with the tariff fight know to what 
an extent the pecuniary argument has been used. 
The recent Republican platform is a bugle call to 
every beneficiary of special privilege, to enlist again 
under the Republican banner, and when the election 
is over and the Republican committee publishes the 
list of contributors — too late to make the informa- 
tion valuable — it will be found that the Republican 
party has again so obligated itself to the protected 
interests as to be unable to make a revision in the 
interests of the consumers. 

With a President who, toward the close of his 
term, admitted the necessity for tariff revision, with 



THE TARIFF 297 

a two-thirds majority iu the Senate and nearly sixty 
majority in the House, the Republican party has 
refused to permit any revision whatever. Mr. Will- 
iams, the leader of the minority in the House, intro- 
duced a bill providing for a reduction of the tariff 
to 100 per cent., wherever it is now more than 100 
per cent. It would look as if the Republican party 
might have taken this step toward tariff revision, 
had it been deeply in earnest; but no, the bill was 
not even reported from the committee. Whenever 
attention was called to an indefensible schedule, the 
answer was that they could not afford to open the 
subject for debate just before a campaign, but there 
is no force in this objection because the House rules 
are so framed that the majority can cut off debate, 
prevent amendment and silence opposition. 

The administration has claimed credit for the fine 
against the Standard Oil Company in the case 
which was lately reversed, but no effort has been 
made to relieve the people from the fine which is 
imposed upon them every day by the Standard Oil 
Company through the operation of the tariff law 
which gives that company more than 100 per cent, 
protection against its chief rival, Russia. What 
faith can a real tariff reformer, whether he be a 
Republican or a Democrat, repose in the Republican 
leaders, when they deliberately put off all reduc- 
tion until after election, and then call for contribu- 
tions, with the understanding that the public shall 
not know the names of the contributors until after 
the polls are closed? 

The Republican platform says that the tariff is 
intended for the American manufacturers, farmers 

123 



298 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

and producers, and especially for the wage-earners. 
If the farmer and the wage-earner are really the 
chief beneficiaries of the protective system, will the 
Republican candidate explain why the farmer and 
the wage-earner have contributed so little to the 
Republican campaign fund ? Is he willing to pub- 
lish a list of contributors on the 15th day of next 
October and allow the relative advantage of protec- 
tion to the manufacturer, the farmer and the wage- 
earner to be measured by the contributions received 
from each class ? Why is it that the manufacturers 
are expected to furnish so large a proportion of the 
money to run the campaign, if, as the Republicans 
claim, the farmers and the laborers enjoy so large 
a proportion in the benefits of the system ? Is it not 
a significant fact that the farmers and wage-earners 
who are always put in the foreground when the 
blessings of a high tariff are being enumerated are 
in the background when the collections are being 
made ? Is it not significant that the manufacturers, 
who furnish the funds, are so little advertised as 
beneficiaries? Is it not significant also that the 
wage-earners, instead of the manufacturers, are al- 
ways described as ''the most direct beneficiaries of 
the protective system ? ' ' 

But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that 
the Republican party sincerely repents of its delay 
in beginning tariff reform, repudiates its obligations 
to the contributing manufacturers and honestly be- 
gins a ''revision." What rule is to govern the re- 
vision ? The Republican platform says : 

"In all tariff legislation, the true principle of protection 
is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will 



THE TARIFF 299 

equal the difference between the cost of prorluction at home 
and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American 
industries." 

Mr. Taft endorses this rule and says that '*in a 
number of schedules the tariff now exceeds this dif- 
ference, and that the excess offers a temptation to 
those who would monopolize the production and 
sale of such articles in this country." He adds, 
however, that ''there are some few articles on which 
the tariff is not sufficiently high to give them the 
measure of protection they should receive. * ' 

Will he explain upon what rule the present tariff 
was framed? When have the Republicans claimed 
more protection than enough to cover the difference 
in the cost of production here and abroad? The 
"reasonable profit to American Industries" is an 
addition to the rule, and is likely to be used as an 
excuse for raising the tariff. And, by the way, to 
what other business does the Government guarantee 
a "reasonable profit"? To the farmer, or the mer- 
chant, or the laborer? To none of these. If in re- 
vising the tariff the Republican party is to work up- 
on exactly the same plan (or a plan contemplating 
a higher rate) what hope have we that the new 
tariff will be lower than the present one? Are the 
present leaders more honest than the ones who 
framed the existing tariff? Are they not, in fact, 
the same men who are responsible for tariff extor- 
tion during the last decade ? If this new-born zeal 
for revision were a hundred times greater than his 
notification speech indicates, what chance would the 
Republican candidate have of securing any real 
tariff reform at the hands of such Republicans as 



300 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

now represent that party in the Senate and House, 
the very men who represented it in the recent na- 
tional convention? Speaker Cannon, who has sup- 
prest tariff legislation in the present Congress, was 
a dominating factor in the convention and, if the 
Republicans retain control of the House, will be the 
Speaker of the next Congress. Does his prominence 
afford tariff reformers any assurance of a reduction 
of the tariff in the interest of the consumers? In 
case of a Republican victory. Congressman Sherman 
will become the presiding of^cer of the Senate. He 
has been the confidential companion of Speaker 
Cannon, and in the convention it was Speaker Can- 
non who vouched for him. But as a matter of fact, 
Mr. Sherman's stand-patism needed no endorse- 
ment; his record is a guaranty that no beneficiary 
of special privileges will be disturbed. It was Con- 
gressman Sherman who, in a speech in the House on 
the 18th of last April, boastfully declared, 

"We recognize the fact that we have a Republican ma- 
jority in the Senate, that we have a Republican majority in 
this House, that is ready to resort to every legal, every 
proper constitutional right to enact such legislation as it 
deems for the best interest for the greatest number of our 
people, and which is willing and ready to accept full re- 
sponsibility for all those measures which are introduced 
here and ichich are not enacted into law." 

The Republican platform suggests that there 
should be a maximum tariff and a minimum, the 
maximum to be used in retaliation and the mini- 
mum in ordinary case^. This is merely adding de- 
lusion to,procrastination and uncertainty. We have 
prominent Republican authority, Senator Dolliver 
and Senator Hanna, to prove that in the present 



THE TARIFF 301 

law the rates were knowingly made higher than 
necessary with the understanding that reductions 
would be made to secure foreign trade. Mr. Dol- 
liver said in the Senate on January 13, 1903: ''It 
is true that in the bill which he (Mr. Dingley) re- 
ported from the committee on ways and means he 
did put duties up for the express purpose of having 
them traded down. ' ' Mr. Dolliver insisted that the 
reciprocity provision in the Dingley act was as dis- 
tinctly a part of the tariff policy as the coal sched- 
ule and complained that "not one line of the wis- 
dom of James G. Blaine remained on the statute 
books," and that ''not a step had been taken to 
fulfil the purpose of the last Buffalo address of 
President McKinley." And yet the very men who 
present this new plan prevented the carrying out 
of the old plan. 

The schemes resorted to by the men who have 
grown rich by laying tariff burdens upon the coun- 
try are more numerous than novel. Tariff meas- 
ures which embody the principles of protection are 
not drawn by legislators, altho as a matter of 
courtesy they generally bear the names of legis- 
lators ; they are really drawn by the representatives 
of the interests which demand protection. These 
representatives claim to be the guardians of the 
laboring men, and yet they carefully avoid writing 
into the law anything that will require the guard- 
ians to execute the trust. It is strange that so many 
voters have been so long deceived as to the object 
and the operation of the laws which are ostensibly 
designed for the protection of the wage-earners ; it 
can only be accounted for ^n the theory that the 



302 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

voters have not understood either the theory of 
protection or the facts that are relied upon to sup- 
port it. 

In ordinary affairs there is no difference between 
a tariff reformer and a protectionist. They meet 
together in business, in society, in the lodge room 
and in the church. In their daily life they apply 
the same rules and are guided by the same business 
rules. This similarity manifests itself all through 
life and up to the very hour of death. If a protec- 
tionist makes a will, he makes it upon the same plan 
that the tariff reformer follows. As death ap- 
proaches, he estimates the value of his property, 
leaves to his wife and children what he wishes them 
to have, and then makes such bequests as he likes 
to public institutions and to those outside of the 
family; and such part as he leaves to his wife and 
children, he carefully divides among them, giving 
to each a definite share. He does not give all his 
property to one child and say that he trusts the 
child to deal fairly with the rest of the family. 
Why? Because he knows his children and would 
not put a child in a position where selfishness 
might lead him to do injustice to other members 
of the family. No, he would not trust his own flesh 
and blood to deal fairly with those reared at the 
same fireside with him; and he is wise in not 
placing this temptation before one of his own fam- 
ily. But when a protectionist comes to make a 
tariff law, he acts on an entirely different plan; 
he votes millions, yes, hundreds of millions of dol- 
lars, to manufacturers whom he has never seen, 
and trusts them to be just in the distribution of 



THE TARIFF 303 

the trust fund among their employees. And what 
has been the result? Just what might have been 
expected — the manufacturers have appropriated 
the trust fund to their own use and have paid their 
employees only such wages as trade conditions com- 
pelled. 

The Homestead strike occurred after the Repub- 
lican convention of 1892, but before the Republican 
candidate wrote his letter of acceptance. He could 
not ignore the strike, for it presented an object 
lesson which even a high-tariff Republican could 
not fail to see. So Mr. Harrison, the candidate, re- 
ferring to the strike, said : 

"I regret that all employers of labor are not just and 
considerate and that capital sometimes takes too large a 
share of the profits !" 

**Too large a share of the profits?" Yes; more 
than that. The protected manufacturers have se- 
cured, in many eases, a tariff of more than twice the 
percentage paid to workmen in wages. The net 
profits of the steel trust last year were just about 
equal to the entire amount paid in wages, and the 
wages constituted less than twenty-five per cent, of 
the total value of the product. According to this 
statement, each workingman employed by the steel 
trust earned, on an average, not only the amount 
paid to him, but one hundred per cent, profit besides 
for his employer. And, I may add, while these 
beneficiaries of protection have been pretending 
to make the tariff laws for the direct benefit of the 
employees, these same employees have, as a rule, 
been kept close to the hunger line, v/hile many of 
the employers have become the possessors of the 



304 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

*' swollen fortunes" which now menace the nation's 
morals as well as its business. 

And yet the Republican party was not willing 
that a single item on the steel schedule should be 
touched, and the Republican campaign committee 
will not dare to publish, before the election, the 
contributions that have been made or will be made 
to the Republican campaign fund by the men most 
largely interested in the steel trust. 

Let me show you how the tariff operates. I have 
here a statement made by Mr. H. E. Miles, Chair- 
man of the Tariff Committee of the National Asso- 
ciation of Manufacturers and head of the Agri- 
cultural Implement Association. The statement 
appears in the American Industries of November 
15th, 1907, a paper which is now supporting the 
Republican ticket and making a special fight 
against the labor plank of the Democratic platform. 
Here is what Mr. Miles says : 

"I have made money every year out of the Tariff Graft. 
Not much, but still a little. 

"The tariff barons raised their price $50,000 to me. I 
made a charge against the jobber of $60,000 and I know 
that he charged more than $70,000 for the $60,000 he 
paid me. Before reaching the consumer the $50,000 charge 
became about $100,000 to be paid by the agricultural con- 
sumer. 

"The manufacturer who would prosper must make a 
double profit, ome by the shrewd management of his busi- 
ness and another by still shrewder manipulation in Wash- 
ington. 

"We have no great difficulty in shipping* abroad for we 
could get as high prices as at home. We are so held up, 
however, by our supply people that to most of us there is 
very scant profit in foreign business. 

"When Congress gave us forty-five per cent., we needing 
only twenty per cent, they gave us a congressional peiTnit, 



THE TARIFF 305 

if not an invitation, to consolidate, form one great trust 
and advance our prices twenty-five per cent., being the 
difference between the twenty per cent, needed and the 
forty-five per cent given." 

Mr. Miles shows how the tariff raises prices to 
those who, in manufacturing, have to buy other 
manufactured products. This expense is trans- 
ferred to the next purchaser. The jobber charges 
a profit on the tariff as well as on the cost of the 
article, and each person who handles the product 
collects a profit, so that, according to Mr. Miles, 
the first charge of $50,000 becomes $100,000 by the 
time it reaches the consumer. Mr. Miles in another 
article estimates the total tariff* tax on the people 
at $500,000,000 annually. The statement of Mr. 
Miles also shows that the tariff law is an invitation 
to consolidate, and that having been given the tariff 
on the theory that it is needed, the manufacturers 
naturally assume that it is intended that they shall 
take advantage of it, even if they have to combine 
to do so. 

How will Mr. Taft explain to the average man 
the benefits of protection ? He can easily convince 
a trust that it profits by the tariff, but what about 
the victim of the trust ? 

No Republican leader will now deny that reduc- 
tions ought to be made, but who is to make the re- 
ductions? The only answer given by the Repub- 
licans is that the tariff ought to be reformed by its 
''friends"; that is, that those who made the last 
tariff law should be entrusted with the making of 
a new tariff law. But suppose the people adopt the 
Republican idea and entrust the making of the 
tariff law to Republican Congressmen j what will be 



306 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

the method of procedure? Fortunately for the 
voter, Mr. Miles explains this also. In the April, 
1908, number of American lyidustries, Mr. Miles 
says: ''The people instruct and trust Congress to 
grant just, equitable and ample protection." 

Is not that just what the Republican leaders 
claim to favor? They want you to "instruct and 
trust Congress to grant just, equitable and ample 
protection.'' And what does that mean? Mr. 
Miles says that Congress ''trusts the Ways and 
Means Committee. ' ' And a Republican leader will 
tell you that this is also proper. Then what ? Mr. 
Miles says that "this committee trusts such per- 
sons as Mr. Dalzell," and that "they — they trust 
the trusts." 

The method of procedure is simple. It is a case 
of confidence. The voters have confidence in Re- 
publican leaders; the leaders have confidence in a 
Republican Congress; a Republican Congress has 
confidence in the Ways and Means Committee; the 
Ways and Means Committee has confidence in the 
men who represent the trusts, and the trusts write 
the tariff law and thus secure to themselves the 
right to levy tribute upon the public. So accus- 
tomed have Republican leaders become to allowing 
the protected interests to write the tariff schedules 
that so eminent and honorable a man as Senator 
Hoar of Massachusetts said, in discussing the Mc- 
Kinley bill, then before the Senate : 

"Instead of coming' before your subcommittee for a for- 
mal hearing on our Massachusetts industries, I thought the 
best way was to carefully prepare a table of all the various 
industries, perhaps some sixty or seventy in all, and ask 



THE TARIFF 307 

Brother Aldrich to go over them with me and ascertain 
what the people wanted in each case, and if there were 
any cases where the committee had not already done ex- 
actly what the petitioners desired or had not inflexibly 
passed upon the question, I could have a hearinjr before 
you, but I find in every instance the action of the C.'om- 
mittee, as Mr. Aldrich thinks it likely to be, is entirely 
satisfactory to the interests I represent, with the excep- 
tion of one or two, and the papers in regard to those cases 
I have handed to Mr. Aldrich." 

Mr. Miles, whom I have before quoted, says, in 

American Industries of April of this year : 

"People asking a government representative for relief on 
another schedule were by that representative referred to a 
New England manufacturer, the official agreeing to act in 
accordance with the protected manufacturer's wishes. Said 
the manufacturer : 'I wrote that schedule myself. I did 
not intend that it should be interpreted as severely as it 
has been, but having been so interpreted, I will not con- 
sent to a modification of it.' And this man's will remains 
the law." 

We would not expect a jury to do justice to the 
defendant if it was composed entirely of the rela- 
tives of the plaintiff; neither can we expect a Con- 
gress to do justice to the masses if it is composed 
of men who are in sympathy with, and obligated 
to, the corporations which have for a generation 
been enjoying special privileges. 

There is no prospect of relief from a Republican 
President and Congress. The Democratic party, if 
entrusted with power, can and will reduce the 
tariff. 

The Democratic platform not only demands a re- 
duction of the tariff, but it plainly outlines the 
course to be pursued in securing the reduction. It 
begins by proposing that articles vv^hich come into 
competition with articles controlled by a trust be- 



308 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

placed on the free list. "What better place to be- 
gin? Years ago Mr. Havemeyer, the head of the 
Sugar Trustj said that the tariff was the mother of 
trusts — and her children are many. Secretary 
Taft, in his notification speech, says that an excess- 
ive tariff serves no useful purpose, *'but offers a 
temptation to those who would monopolize the pro- 
duction and the sale of such articles in this coun- 
try, to profit by the excessive rate." 

Now, suppose the manufacturers, who have been 
favored by legislation, do conspire against the pub- 
lie and enter into a monopoly. What penalty do 
the Republicans suggest? None whatever. These 
men are to be consulted about proposed changes, 
and if the next Republican tariff is made like for- 
mer Republican tariffs, nothing will be done with- 
out the unanimous consent of the beneficiaries. 

What would be the effect of the remedy pro- 
])osed by the Democratic platform? Simply this: 
a law goes into effect at some fixt date in the 
future, and if the Democrats pass a law, putting 
upon the free list articles coming into competition 
with those controlled by a trust, the trust will have 
until that date to dissolve. If the trust considers 
the law too drastic, it can avoid it by giving up 
its monopoly. 

Secretary Taft calls this remedy ** utterly de- 
structive," and in his anxiety to prevent it over- 
looks the fact that the Democratic party has other 
remedies for the trusts. If we can succeed in dis- 
solving existing trusts, and in preventing the or- 
ganization of new ones, there will be no trusts 
against which to use the remedy of which he com- 



THE TARIFF 309 

plains. There is now a law against trusts, but it 
has not been sufficiently enforced to prevent trusts. 
The Democrats demand its enforcement; if its en- 
forcement rids the country of trusts, then this pol- 
icy which Mr. Taft so much fears will become per- 
fectly harmless. If the Democrats secure control 
of both the House and the Senate, they are pledged 
to legislation which will make a private monopoly 
impossible. If the Republicans retain control of 
part of the legislative machinery of the Govern- 
ment and refuse to join in the effort to make a 
private monopoly impossible, they are not in a po- 
sition to complain of tariff legislation aimed at 
trusts. If they refuse to assist us in exterminating 
the principle of private monopoly, they cannot well 
object to legislation necessary to protect the people 
from trust extortion. 

Mr. Taft did not refer to the platform demand 
that wood pulp, print paper, lumber, timber and 
logs be placed upon the free list. Why? Because 
the President vainly besought Congress to enact 
a law embodying part of this demand. It is absurd 
to complain of the exhaustion of our forests while 
we encourage their destruction by a tariff on the 
products of foreign forests. But such legislation 
becomes not only a folly but a crime when it is re- 
membered that a handful of men monopolize the 
benefits flowing from the tariff on these things 
while the whole country bears the burden of the 
tax. Hon. R. F. Pettigrew, of South Dakota, in a 
speech made in the United States Senate, referred 
to an important statement, which appeared in The 
Northivesterfh Lumherman, February 27, 1897. 



310 BEYAN'S SPEECHES 

Senator Burrows, of Michigan, had referred to a 
Mr. Winchester as a man of great reliability and 
truthfulness, and Senator Pettigrew quoted Mr. 
Winchester as saying in The Northwestern Lum- 
berman : 

"There were a lot of gentlemen from the Northwest, up 
Minnesota way, in Washington the other day, and they 
were sitting in Senator Brown's room. An interesting 
incident occurred there. Senator Burrows is chairman of 
the committee. The committee had not had a meeting for 
a long time. They happened to be seated in that room, 
and one of the gentlemen from M'innesota had an envelope 
and lead pencil. He walked around the room and ciphered 
up a little bit, and he said : 

" 'Mr. Burrows, do you know what $1 a thousand would 
mean to this crowd of men in here?' 

"There were not as many in the room as there are 
here. He said : 

" 'An advance of $1 a thousand on lumber would mean 
?6,125,000 on last year's product.' " 

Could more conclusive proof be desired? And 
the Senator Burrows mentioned is the same Sena- 
tor Burrows who acted as Temporary Chairman 
of the last Republican National Convention, and 
sounded the keynote of the campaign. 

How long will the Republican farmers, mer- 
chants and laboring men permit a few men to make 
the tariff laws for their own pecuniary advantage 
and at the expense of the rest of the country ? 

The second step in the reduction of the tariff is 
a ''material reduction upon the neoessities of life, 
especially upon goods competing with such Ameri- 
can manufactures as are sold abroad more cheaply 
than at home." At present the articles used by 
the poor bear a higher rate, ad valorem, than the 
articles used by the rich. This statement can be 



THE TARIFF 311 

verified by an examination of any of the schedules. 
A tax upon consumption, even when laid with ab- 
solute impartiality, bears heaviest upon the poor, 
because our necessities are much more uniform 
than our possessions. People do not eat in pro- 
portion to their income ; they do not wear clothing 
in proportion to their income; they do not use 
taxed goods in proportion to their income. As all 
taxes must come out of one's income, no matter 
through what sj'stem levied or collected, they are, 
in effect, income taxes, and taxes on consumption 
are really graduated income taxes, the largest per 
cent, being collected from those with the smallest 
income and the smallest per cent, from those with 
the largest income. It is only fair, therefore, that 
in an attempt to relieve the people from the iniqui- 
ties of a high tariff, the poor, who are overbur- 
dened, should be given first consideration. Then, 
too, a reduction in the tariff on the necessities of 
life brings a benefit to all the people, while a reduc- 
tion in the tax upon luxuries would benefit but a 
portion of the people. 

Surely no one will object to a reduction being 
made upon articles which come into competition 
with American manufactures which are sold abroad 
more cheaply than at home. The American manu- 
facturer who sends his goods to foreign lands and 
there, without any protection whatever, competes 
successfully with the manufacturers of all the 
world, does not need a high tariff to meet competi- 
tion in the home market. And there are enough 
articles sold abroad at a low price to assure a large 



812 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

advantage to the ximerican consumers through the 
carrying out of this one plank. 

Mr. Taft, however, finds the greatest alarm in 
the following clause in our platform: ** Gradual 
reductions should be made in such other schedules 
as may be necessary to restore the tariff to a reve- 
nue basis.'' 

He regards this threatened departure from the 
protective system as fatal. We are here brought 
face to face with the theoretical difference between 
the positions of the two parties on the subject of 
tariff. The Democratic party regards a tariff law 
as a revenue law, the protection it gives being in- 
cidental ; the Republican party regards a tariff law 
as framed primarily for protection, the revenue 
being incidental. As the effect of a given rate on 
a particular article is the same, whether levied for 
the purpose of revenue or for the purpose of pro- 
tection, it may be well to define the difference be- 
tween a revenue tariff and a protective tariff. A 
revenue tariff is so framed as to collect a revenue 
and you stop when you get enough; a protective 
tariff may be so framed as to collect but little reve- 
nue, and yet lay a heavy burden upon the people — 
and you never know when to stop. To illustrate: 
a tariff may be made so high as to absolutely pro- 
hibit importation. If, in such a case, the manu- 
facturers yield to the temptation mentioned by 
Mr. Taft and combine to take advantage of the 
duty, the consumers will be heavily taxed, and yet 
none of the money will reach the treasury. 

Let us suppose another case. If we import one- 
tenth of a certain kind of merchandise and produce 



THE TARIFF 313 

at home nine-tenths, and the imported and domes- 
tic articles sell at the same price, then the treasury 
receives duty on the foreign article and the manu- 
facturers collect nine times as much on the do- 
mestic article as the treasury collects on the one- 
tenth imported. It becomes a matter of great im- 
portance, therefore, to the people at large, whether 
the tariff is intended to raise a revenue or is framed 
in the interest of the manufacturers and for the 
purpose of protection. No one would think of 
employing in a city, a county or a State, a tax 
system under which the bulk of the tax would go 
to the collectors, and yet the Republican leaders 
demand the continuance of a system under which 
the protected interests receive far more than half 
the money collected from the people through the 
operation of a high tariff. 

As a tariff law interferes with the natural laws 
of trade, one who proposes a protective tariff takes 
upon himself the burden of proof to show, first, 
that a protective tariff is right in principle; sec- 
ond, that it is wise as a public policy, and, third, 
that it is necessary. And yet what protectionist 
attempts to present an argument in support of any 
one of these propositions? 

Is it right to tax all of the people for the benefit 
of a few? Where a community has attempted to 
collect taxes for the aid of an industry, even when 
the industry was to be located in the community, 
the highest court in the land has declared such a 
tax to be larceny in the form of law. If a city 
government cannot rightfully tax all the people to 
bring an industry into the city, where such bene- 

124 



314 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

fits as are conferred are more easily seen and more 
universally enjoyed, who .will say that a farmer 
in the Missouri Valley can be rightfully taxed to 
support an industry in a distant State? 

As a matter of public policy, is it wise that the 
industries that do pay should be compelled to carry 
upon their backs industries which, according to the 
arguments made by their representatives, could not 
live without aid? Have we not seen this system 
introducing corruption into politics, and is it not 
building business upon an unsubstantial basis? 
Having secured a tariff from one party, the bene- 
ficiaries loudly declare that the country will be 
ruined if any other party obtains control of the 
Government. Manufacturers have intimidated 
their employees and threatened them with a re- 
duction in wages unless a party favorable to the 
system was continued in power. This is an old 
device, and there are indications that it is being 
resorted to again. The New York Leather Belting 
Company has sent out a number of letters to com- 
panies with which it has business dealings, asking 
them to post in their factories a notice saying: 

"Believing that the election of Taft and Sherman means 
a safe and conservative administration, the day following 
the election we shall start this plant on full time and keep 
going." 

Here is a direct attempt to influence the election 
by a bribe. It is virtual!}^ a promise of wages if 
the Republican ticket is successful and an implied 
threat in case of Democratic success; but the offer 
is so made that it gives the employees no guaranty 
of its fulfilment. The same kind of promises were 



THE TARIFF 315 

made in 1896, and yet for six months after the 
election times were worse than they were before. 
There were business failures and bankruptcies, and 
many institutions that promised their employees 
steady work and good wages, shut down or reduced 
wages. If any factory posts up the sign which the 
Leather Belting Company is sending out, the em- 
ployees ought to get together and ask for a guar- 
anty as to the amount of the wages they are to re- 
ceive and as to the length of time during which the 
guaranty is to extend. If the votes are to be 
bought, the purchase price, at least, should be made 
secure. If the employee's heritage — citizenship — 
is to be sold, he ought, at kast, to be sure of his 
mess of pottage. 

But the whole system is vicious. Business should 
not be built upon legislation ; it should stand upon 
its own merit, and when it does stand upon its own 
merit we shall not only have purer politics, but we 
shall have less fluctuation in business conditions 
and a more equitable distribution of the proceeds 
of toil. 

I cannot pass from this part of my subject, with- 
out calling attention to the fact that Secretary Taft 
has allowed himself to be drawn into the use of an 
argument which the beneficiaries of protection have 
been employing for a generation. Speaking of the 
gradual substitution of a revenue tariff for the pro- 
tective system, he says in his notification speech : 

"The introduction in power of a party with this avowed 
purpose cannot but halt the gradual recovery from our 
recent financial depression and produce business disaster, 
compared with which our recent panic and depression will 
seem small indeed." 



316 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Here is a threat of a panic if the Republican 
party is not retained in power. This panic argu- 
ment was worked overtime in 1896, but I am sur- 
prised that a Republican refers to it in the present 
campaign. 

We have had three panics since the Republican 
party was born: the panic of 1873, the panic of 
1893 and the panic of 1907. The panic of 1873 
came after the Republican party had been in com- 
plete control of the Federal Government for twelve 
years, and eleven years before our party succeedsd 
in securing control of the executive branch of the 
Government. That startling "panic and depres- 
sion" occurred in the very midst of Republican 
rule, just after a Republican victory, and under a 
high tariff. Is it not strange that Secretary Taft 
should forget this panic, when he warns us to 
beware of any departure from the protective sys- 
tem? 

The panic of 1907 came after the Republicans 
had been in complete control of the Federal Gov- 
ernment for more than ten years. They had had 
an opportunity to do everything that they wanted 
to do and to undo everything that needed to be 
undone, and we were under such a high tariff that 
even Secretary Taft admits the necessity for re- 
vision. This panic was so bad that banks felt it 
necessary to do something that they had never 
done before, namely, arbitrarily limit the amount 
of money that depositors could draw on their own 
accounts. Ex-Secretary Shaw says that the strin- 
gency of 1907 was "the severest the world has 
ever witnessed." "With this panic fresh in his 



THE TARIFF 317 

mind, is it not strange that he should argue that 
his election is necessary to prevent a panic ? 

I have referred to two of the three panics, both 
of these coming under conditions which compel 
the Republican party to accept the responsibility 
for them. Now, let us consider the panic of 1893. 
If that could be properly charged to the Demo- 
cratic party, it would only be one Democratic panic 
to two Republican panics. But can it be fairly 
charged to the Democrats? It came, it is true, a 
few months after the inauguration of a Democratic 
president, but it came while the McKinley high 
tariff was still in effect and before a single Repub- 
lican law had been repealed, and it came from 
causes that were in operation before the election. 
In fact, it was the failure of the Republican party 
to do its duty and satisfy the people that brought 
about a Democratic victory, and these causes would 
have brought on a panic, even if the Republican 
party had remained in powder. Now, this is the 
record, and yet, in spite of this record, the Re- 
publican candidate presumes to threaten a panic 
in case of Democratic success. 

The third proposition w^hich the protectionist 
must establish, namely, that the tariff asked for is 
necessary, is still less considered. It is true that we 
pay higher wages per day than are paid elsewhere, 
but that does not necessarily mean that the actual 
labor cost of an article is higher here than abroad. 
On the contrary, the rule is that high-priced labor 
produces a cheaper article than low-priced labor. 
Manufacturers of hardware will tell you that they 
can export hardware which contains a great deal of 



318 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

labor and a small amount of raw material, but that 
they cannot export hardware in which the raw 
material constitutes a large proportion of the value. 
We are sending manufactures of steel all over the 
world. The steam engine, for instance, is made by 
skilled labor, and yet we can send it abroad and 
defy competition. Our electrical machinery is made 
by skilled labor, and yet we have no fear of foreign 
competition, even in the foreign markets. Our ag- 
ricultural machinery is made by skilled labor, and 
yet we export it to all countries. Our sewing ma- 
chines are manufactured by skilled labor, but the 
American traveler finds our sewing machines every- 
where; and the list could be extended indefinitely. 

For twenty-five years the American workingman 
has been told that he receives higher wages than 
the English workman solely because of protection, 
but our wage-earners now know that this cannot be 
due to protection, because the English workman 
receives higher wages than the German workman, 
altho the German tariff is higher than the tariff of 
Great Britain. 

Protection does not make good wages. Our bet- 
ter wages are due to the greater intelligence and 
skill of our workmen, to the greater hope which 
free institutions give them, to improved machinery, 
to the better conditions that surround them, and 
to the organizations which have been formed among 
the wage-earners. 

A revenue tariff will not bring a panic; it will 
not inaugurate industrial depression ; it will not 
reduce wages; on the contrary, it will stimulate 
business and give more employment, and a larger 



THE TARIFF 319 

demand for labor will be a guaranty against a 
reduction of wages. A reduction of the tariff will 
reduce the extortion that is now practised because 
of the high schedules; a reduction in price will 
enable more people to buy, and this larger demand 
for the goods will put more people to work and 
increase the number of industries. A lower price 
will greatly stimulate exportation, and manufac- 
turers who are now crippled by a tariff upon what 
they use will be better prepared to enter the contest 
for supremacy in the world's trade. 

We cannot hope to invade foreign markets to 
the extent we should, until we relieve our manu- 
facturers of the handicap that protection places 
upon them in the purchase of materials they have 
to use. Neither can we hope to continually increase 
our exports without increasing our imports. Trade 
must be mutual if it is to be permanent. Presi- 
dent McKinley recognized this, and in the last 
speech that he made he pointed out that we must 
buy from other nations if we expect to sell to other 
nations. 

The Democratic plan does not contemplate an 
immediate change from one system to the other; 
it expressly declares that the change shall be grad- 
ual, and a gradual change is only possible where 
the country is satisfied with the results of each 
step taken. We elect a Congress every two years 
and a President every four years, and the people 
can soon stop any policy if the results of that 
policy are not satisfactory. But we believe that 
the experience the people have had with "protec- 
tion for protection 's sake ' ' has led them to favor a 



320 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

restoration of the tariff by gradual steps to a reve- 
nue basis, and we are convinced that the advan- 
tages following each step will be so pronounced 
and that the benefits will be so universally enjoyed 
that there will be no halt in the progress toward 
a system under which the tariff will be levied for 
the purpose of revenue and limited to the needs of 
the government. The low tariff law of 1846 did 
not produce a panic; on the contrary, it was so 
satisfactory that when the Republican party wrote 
its first platform, ten years afterward, the protec- 
tive principle was not endorsed. 

The Democratic party has declared for an in- 
come tax as a part of the revenue system, and for 
a constitutional amendment as a means of secur- 
ing this tax. Secretary Taft announces in his noti- 
fication speech that he is in favor of an income 
tax whenever the revenues are so low as to require 
it, and expresses his belief that it is possible to 
secure such a tax without a constitutional amend- 
ment. If it is possible to frame a law which will 
avoid the objections raised to the income tax law of 
1894, well and good, but that is uncertain. If an 
income tax is desirable, surely Secretary Taft can 
not consistently oppose the adoption of a consti- 
tutional amendment. If the principle is right and 
the tax wise, Congress ought to have authority to 
levy and collect such a tax, and no supporter of 
Secretary Taft can oppose our position without 
dissenting from the Republican candidate. 

The whole aim of our party is to secure justice 
in taxation. We believe that each individual should 
contribute to the support of the Government in 



THE TARIFF 321 

proportion to the benefits which he receives under 
the protection of the Government. We believe 
that a revenue tariff, approached gradually, ac- 
cording to the plan laid down in our platform, will 
equalize the burdens of taxation, and that the 
addition of an income tax will make taxation still 
more equitable. If the Republican party is to 
have the support of those w^io find a pecuniary 
profit in the exercise of the taxing power, as a 
private asset in their business, we ought to have 
the support of that large majority of the people 
who produce the nation's wealth in time of peace, 
protect the nation's flag in time of war, and ask 
for nothing from the Government but even-handed 
justice. 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION IN 
NEBRASKA 

Delivered at the Democratic State Convention in Grand 
Island, Nebraska, July 2Gth, 1910, in support of the minor- 
ity report presented by him as a member of the Resolutions 
Committee. 

I SHALL read the substitute which I offer for 
the majority report on this subject: ''We 
favor county option as the best method of 
dealing with the liquor question. ' ' I appreciate the 
spirit of fairness that has characterized the demo- 
crats who, if we can judge by what has occurred, 
are in a majority in this convention, and I assure 
you that it is with very great regret that I find 
myself compelled to differ from those with whom 
I have been associated so intimately and so» pleas- 
antly for so many years. In view of the fact that 
many democrats think me responsible for the intro- 
duction of this question, and accuse me of disturb- 
ing the harmony of the party at this time ; in viev/ 
of the fact that many feel that I have forfeited my 
right to your confidence, I think I am entitled to 
present my defense. 

Demosthenes defined the duty of a statesman by 
saying that he should ' ' foresee and foretell. ' ' Pos- 
sibly after three nominations for the presidency 
it would not be presumptuous to count myself an 
humble member of the group called statesmen ; but 
if there is objections to that I am sure you will 

(322) 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 323 

allow me to call myself one of the leaders of the 
democratic party in Nebraska. And I think it 
is only fair to apply to the leader the definition 
of statesmanship given by Demosthenes. It is the 
duty of the leader to "foresee and foretell," 
and I shall not ask you to deal leniently with 
me if I have fallen below this standard. If I 
have not foreseen coming evils and told you of 
them, spare me not ; if I have advocated that which 
is not good for this State, let me feel j^our wrath. 
"While I am not willing to accept that definition of 
party loyalty that puts consideration for the party 
good above consideration for the State's welfare, 
yet, for the sake of argument, I am willing to accept 
that definition of party loyalty, and have you 
measure me by it. If you find that I have done 
anything that is not for the benefit of the demo- 
cratic party, I ask no mercy at your hands. 

Do not accuse me of indifference to the harmony 
of the democratic party. Who among you has more 
reason to desire harmony than I ? For sixteen years 
we have never had a dissenting vote on our platform 
in Nebraska ; for sixteen years we have been in full 
and hearty agreement in regard to platforms. For 
sixteen years you have trusted me and I have 
trusted you. Who could desire, less than I, to dis- 
turb the harmony of the party? You must make 
a strong case against me if you would overcome the 
presumption in my favor. 

Not only that, but who will suffer more than I if 
I find myself justly repudiated by my own people 1 
My work is in national politics ; I travel from State 
to State, and I am aware that a repudiation by you 



324 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

will be heralded throughout the land and used 
against me. Do I not know that the paragraphers 
are already saying that I am to be turned down 
in my own State? Is that a matter of no conse- 
quence to me? Can you believe that anything less 
than an imperative sense of duty would lead me to 
differ from you? Never in my life have I per- 
formed a duty that I less desired to perform; and 
never have I felt more sure that I was perform- 
ing a duty. 

It has been said by some that I am fighting on 
this subject now because I am not a candidate. 
That is unkind, niy friends. No one who knows my 
record will accuse me of fighting under conditions 
under which I would have kept still if I was a can- 
didate. Go back to '92 when I was a candidate — a 
candidate for Congress without opposition. I went 
into the State convention, with only three men 
encouraging me and began a fight. They refused 
to put me on the committee on resolutions from my 
own county, and I was put on by act of the conven- 
tion. I brought in a minority report signed by my- 
self alone and made my fight when friends told me 
it would defeat me for Congress. In '93 I was a 
member of Congress, and yet I came back to a State 
convention at Lincoln — a convention controlled by 
candidates for federal offices — and there again I made 
a fight, although I knew that my resolution was 
sure to be defeated. Did I show cowardice? Was 
I afraid to jeopardize my own chances by taking 
a position ? 

And the year afterwards I made a fight for a 
policy against the national administration of my 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 325 

party, against the committee then in charge and I 
was then a candidate for the United States Senate. 
Some who now tell me that I must not disturb the 
harmony of the party were with me then, fighting 
for principle and not asking what the effect was 
going to be on the party. I remember that in '9-i 
the distinguished democrat, Judge Oldham, who 
has just addressed you, was with us, and we made 
him our permanent chairman at a time when the 
money question was so acute that there was a bolt 
from our convention. If you will look back over the 
last eighteen years you will not accuse me of being 
in this fight because I am not a candidate. I am 
interested because it is an issue, and because in- 
dividuals and parties must meet issues as they arise. 

I have been called a dictator because I expressed 
my opinion on this subject. Have n©t others ex- 
pressed their opinions? Have not the candidates 
for Governor told you what they thought ought to 
go into the platform and what ought to be left out ? 
Have not the candidates for Senator expressed their 
opinion ? Have not many individuals expressed an 
opinion ? By what law am I compelled to suppress 
an opinion upon a question which affects my State's 
welfare and my party's interest? Is it because I 
have been your candidate for president? I would 
not accept an office or a nomination if there were 
attached to it a pledge that I would see wrong done 
and not raise my voice in protest. 

And some have said that I am actuated by a spirit 
of resentment; that I am mad because the liquor 
interests were against me last fall. Well, my 
friends, it is true that the liquor democrats and 



326 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

liquor republicans put the liquor question above all 
else. They traded me in this and in other States; 
I would have been defeated in my own State, if it 
had not been for republicans who, because of State 
pride, came to my rescue and took the place of 
democrats who deserted me. In Missouri, also, I 
have no hesitancy in saying, the influence of the 
liquor element was sufficient to account for my 
loss of that democratic State. We had the same 
difficulty in Indiana and in Ohio. We had the 
same trouble in Illinois and in New York. And 
do you say that I must not refer to the liquor in- 
fluence in ix)litics for fear somebody will accuse me 
of being sore over being defeated ? I expect to be 
in politics many years yet, and I expect to do what 
I can to help the democratic party, but of what 
use is it to go out and appeal to democrats on na- 
tional issues if, when we have done our best, a 
band of political assassins can come in and rob 
us of victory? 

The liquor question has entered politics, and he 
is blind who does not see it. Just at the time when 
we were about to overthrow Cannonism the special 
interests — the liquor interests among them — drew 
away enough democrats to save Cannon. Do you 
call it resentment to oppose those interests ? I ask 
why you democrats who have fought with me do 
not show resentment at the treatment our party 
has received? (Voice — Hit them again.) 

No, do not say fthat ; I am not here to hit anybody. 
I am here to present the facts as I find them ; and 
I want you to sit in judgment upon them, remem- 
bering that after you have acted, there is a court 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 327 

of appeals, composed of one hundred and thirty 
thousand democrats, that will render a decision. 

Some have said that I ought not to oppose the 
opinion of my party on this subject. Pray, who is 
to tell me the opinion of my party? To whom am 
I to go to find out what ni}^ party thinks? Might 
I not assume that I know my party as well as any- 
one does? Is there any democrat who is acquainted 
with more of the democrats of Nebraska than I am ? 
Is there any democrat who has kept in closer touch 
with these people than I have? Who is to tell me 
what the party wants before the party itself has 
had a chance to give expression to its views? But 
you say I ought to be satisfied when I see this con- 
vention. I can endorse Avhat Judge Oldham has 
said about the character of this body, and yet I 
could bring you to-morrow a body ten times as large 
and just as good looking who would vote exactly 
contrary to you. You must pardon me if my ex- 
perience has taught me not to place too much re- 
liance upon an opinion expressed by a convention 
on a subject that has not been generally discussed. 
Judge Oldham says he does not know what county 
option means; if he does not know, how can you 
expect one hundred and thirty thousand fellow 
democrats to express an intelligent opinion? How 
many of the one hundred and thirty thousand dem- 
ocrats of Nebraska attended the primaries that se- 
lected and instructed you? How many of the fif- 
teen thousand democrats of Douglas county at- 
tended the primaries? 

Do not be angry ; I am simply calling your atten- 
tion to what you know, namely, that you had no 



328 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

primaries in Douglas county. Your county com- 
mittee selected delegates to the county convention, 
and they selected the delegates (largely themselves) 
to the State convention. How many, I ask, of the 
democrats of Douglas county had a voice in select- 
ing you and in instructing you to vote as you do? 
I venture the assertion that not one per cent, had 
any voice. Not that I mean to say that you do not 
accurately represent them ; you may, but they took 
no part in your selection. I read of Adams county 
that there were but three precincts outside of the 
city of Hastings represented in that convention. Let 
me ask the delegates whether that report is correct. 
How many were present outside of Hastings ? 

A voice — "Three, three — six." 

Somebody says six, do I hear a better bid ? What 
right has Hastings, with a brewery, to say she re- 
flects the opinions of the men in the country ? And 
so I might take county after county. I will venture 
the assertion that not ten per cent of the democrats 
of this State were present at the primaries when 
these men were selected. I do not mean to say that 
you necessarily misrepresent the people who did 
not take part, and I do not excuse the people who 
did not attend the primaries — they ought to have 
been there, but I remind you that you represent 
only a small proportion. I read in a Jefferson 
county paper, and I believe it is published by one 
of the members of our resolutions committee, that 
one reason why the initiative and referendum was 
voted down, was that the county convention was not 
sufficiently representative. No, I am not willing to 
take the opinion of this convention as necessarily 



. THE LIQUOR QUESTION 329 

deciding this question; on the contrary, when a 
question like this is at issue where a city with sa- 
loons has an interest adverse to the people outside — 
so adverse that the people in the city are not willing 
to allow the country people to vote — you can not 
say that a convention selected by the cities is neces- 
sarily representative of the democracy of this State. 

But suppose that this convention was composed 
of delegates who had been so selected that every 
democrat had expressed himself in their selection— 
this question of county option has not been carefully 
considered. I remember that in 1893 we had a State 
convention, a convention in which the majority was 
overwhelming against bimetallism, and I remember 
that Douglas county was in that convention in- 
structed to vote as a unit against it ; and I remember 
that one year -afterwards we had a fight in Douglas 
county, and by a vote of two to one secured a dele- 
gation to stand with us for the free and unlimited 
coinage of silver. And the State convention gave 
a two to one majority for bimetallism. That is 
history in this State, and I am not willing that this 
shall be accepted as a final settlement of this ques- 
tion. If it is not, then you can not properly charge 
that I am guilty of disloyalty to my party when I 
dissent from the opinion expressed by a majority of 
you in this convention. I will go further ; I believe 
it is the duty of every democrat to have an opinion 
and to express his opinion, without asking what 
others believe. 

You will agree with me that rt is sound democratic 
doctrine, and has been from time immemorial, for 
a man to express his opinion and accept responsi- 



330 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

bility for it. This is a moral question ; your major- 
ity report says so. On a moral question, I have a 
right to an opinion. I am not required to ask any- 
body what I shall think on a moral question. 

Now let me take the next objection that is made, 
namely, that 1 am forcing a new issue, that I am 
guilty of introducing a disturbing factor when the 
democratic party is at peace. Let me give you the 
history of this question. I did not create the county 
option issue; it was here before I knew anything 
about it. It was here four years ago when I never 
heard of it at all ; two years ago it was an issue in 
our legislature, and I refused to express an opinion 
on the subject. They asked me to say a word in 
favor of county option, but I said, *'No, these men, 
elected as democrats on the ticket with me, have 
been pledged, some for and some against, and I shall 
not embarrass them by expressing an opinion on the 
subject." 

I refused to let anybody know where I stood or 
what I thought, and yet, the question was so much 
an issue then that the brewers of Omaha sent a re- 
publican lobbyist down to Lincoln to tell democrats 
how to vote in the legislature on this subject. If 
it was not an issue then, why had the liquor interests 
gone from place to place and pledged men to vote 
against county option? They had made it an 
issue before I knew anything about it or ex- 
pressed an opinion. Not only that, but Douglas 
county declared against county option last summer 
before I had expressed an opinion on the subject. 
Do not accuse me of bringing this question into 
politics; I met an issue after it had been intro- 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 331 

duced, and if I have any apologies to offer, I shall 
not offer them to the liquor interests for speaking 
now ; I shall offer them to the fathers and mothers of 
this state for not speaking sooner. If I am to blame 
at all, it is for keeping silent when they had more 
reason to expect me to speak, than the brewers 
have to expect me to keep silent at this time. 

But even after I had expressed an opinion on 
this subject, I did not at once decide to m^ake an 
active fight. I dreaded, as I have never dreaded 
anything before, entering into a discussion where 
I might find myself out of harmony with men 
whom I have loved and with whom I have worked 
all these years. Not until I came home from a 
trip to South America, arriving here in April, did 
I decide what I would do. When I reached home 
I learned what was being done ; I found that the 
liquor interests of the nation had entered Nebraska 
politics, and that the liquor interests of the nation 
were joined with the brewers of Omaha, for I re- 
ceived the information from one who talked with 
both. They were banded together to select the Sena- 
tors in this State that they might block legislation 
that was unfavorable to them. I satisfied myself 
that the other special interests were allied with 
the brewery interests, that they were about to bur- 
glarize the State of Nebraska and that they in- 
tended to use the democratic party as the tool with 
which to break into the State house. What could 
I do but give the alarm? I acted as I would if 
I saw a man attempting to burglarize the house of 
a neighbor. You may not believe me, or if you 
do believe me, you may be indifferent, but I shalJ 



332 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

warn you that the conspiracy was formed and is 
being carried out. 

But, they ask, why not be content with a declara- 
tion in favor of the initiative and referendum? 
I tried my best to get the initiative and referendum 
in the last legislature; I not only made a speech 
before the Senate and House but I went personally 
•and solicited men whom I knew to vote for it. 
They .told me that the liquor interests were against 
it; t'hey gave as their reason for voting against 
it that their people were afraid that if we secured 
the initiative and referendum county option would 
be submitted and that they opposed the measure 
as a means of defeating •county option. I warned 
them that the liquor interests had enough to do 
to take care of the saloon business ; that it was not 
their duty to legislate or to run the State of Ne- 
braska. I reminded them that the initiative and 
referendum did riot deal with this one question 
alone, but with all questions; that it was first em- 
bodied in our platform fourteen years ago when the 
liquor question was not before the State. 

But they would not listen to argument and they 
defeated the initiative and referendum. We had 
the Governor on our side, we had an overwhelming 
majority of the democrats on our side in the House, 
and a majority of the democrats in the Senate, 
but there were nine democrats in the Senate who 
would not join with the rest, and they are to blame 
for the fact that we have not the initiative and 
referendum as our paramount State issue this year. 
I want you to know upon whom to place the blame. 
I object to having Democrats lay it at my door when 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 333 

I endeavored to give you a means of submitting 
this question that would have avoided the necessity 
of bringing it up at this -time, but the legislature 
adjourned and nothing was done. The Democratic 
party was denied the splendid advantage we would 
have derived from submitting the initiative and 
referendum to the people. 

Democrats, do you feel no resentment towards 
the liquor interests when for money only they were 
willing to prevent our party from going before 
the people of this State with a proposition so in 
harmony with popular government? 

I was not willing to stop there; when I found 
that there was danger of a fight in this State, 
I decided to try once more, and so I wrote the 
members of the legislature and asked them if 
they would agree to vote for the initiative and 
referendum at a special session. I had no author- 
ity, and Republicans said I was trying to ' ' help the 
Democratic party out of a hole"; that I was trying 
to ' ' get rid of an issue that was embarrassing, ' ' try- 
ing to ''fight the campaign on national issues" ; and 
why not? We have a Senator to elect, why not 
elect him on national issues? We have six Con- 
gressmen to elect, why not elect them on national 
issues ? I made one more effort to get countj^ option 
out of the way, and I came so near — nineteen Sen- 
ators pledged — that if one of these Senators who re- 
fused to vote aye, had joined the nineteen we 
would have had the necessary twenty in the Sen- 
ate. 

Who has tried harder than I to save the party 
from this issue ? I made this fight to get a special 



334 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

session, and had 1 had the support that I had a 
right to expect we would have had the special ses- 
sion, would be out fighting for the initiative and 
referendum, and county option w^ould not have 
troubled us in this convention. Do not blame me, 
blame the Senators who, even after the Democratic 
State convention of 1909 had declared for the initd- 
ative and referendum, still refused to promise to 
vote for it. And why? Because of the opposition 
of the liquor interests in their districts. And these 
men are here to-day, nearly every one of them 
delegates to this convention, and coming from coun- 
ties which, with one exception, did not indorse 
the initiative and referendum. 

You ask me why I do not trust a platform prom- 
ise in favor of the initiative and referendum now? 
Because I will not trust any man who is under 
secret promise to the liquor interests, no matter 
■what he promises in his platform. It has been 
said by the opponents of county option that a coun- 
ty option plank in the State platform will not bind 
a man in a district that is opposed to county option. 
If that be true, then who says that a plank in favor 
of the initiative and referendum will bind a man 
in a district where his people are against it? If 
these men would not vote for the initiative and 
referendum after their party had declared for it 
last year, what assurance have we that they will 
vote for it this year? Did not Democrats in Colo- 
rado refuse to vote for the initiative and referen- 
dum although it was in their platform? In Minne- 
sota, also, the Democrats declared for it in their 
platform, but some Democrats voted against it in 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 335 

the Legislature. I was not willing to go out and 
promise the people that it would be done next year 
unless this convention would sever the tie that binds 
it to the liquor interests. News has come this after- 
noon that the Republicans have declared for the 
initiative and referendum in their State convention, 
and that the Populists have also declared for it. 
Are you glad? (Cries of yes, yes, no.) 

Why do you not applaud? You ought to ap- 
plaud, because that is the only way we have a 
chance of getting it. If we had to depend on Demo- 
crats alone we would never get it as long as our 
party marches behind the brewers. I am glad the 
Republicans and Populists have declared for it, be- 
cause I think that with all parties for it, the liquor 
interests will not be able to get enough legislators 
to violate their pledges to defeat it. 

Who made county option the paramount issue in 
this State? Do you say I did? You flatter me. 
I appreciate it, but I can not accept the compli- 
ment. Did I make the Republican party declare 
for county option at Lincoln? If so, I had more 
influence with the Republican party than I seem 
to have with the Democratic party. Did I make 
the Populists declare for county option? If so, 
let me thank the Populists for being nearer to me 
than the Democrats are. I did not make the Re- 
publican party do this ; I foresaw that they would 
do it. I did not make the Populists do it ; they did 
it two years ago, before I expressed an opinion on 
the subject. Who forced this issue? Your liquor 
dealers; they made county option paramount. How? 
By telling us that we could not have self-govern- 



336 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

ment as long as the fear of county option stood in 
the way, and so the people said: '*If we can not 
govern ourselves until we get it out of the way, 
then we will act upon it at once so we can pro- 
ceed with other things.'* 

As a result of their stupid opposition the liquor 
interests will probably have county option two years 
sooner than they would have had it if they had 
not prevented the submission of the initiative and 
referendum. Had we succeeded in submitting the 
initiative and referendum, it could not have been 
voted upon until next November, and then county 
option could not have been submitted under the 
initiative and referendum until two years from next 
November. If the Legislature this year gives you 
statutory county option, a committee ought to be 
appointed to thank the brewers for unintentionally 
advancing temperance legislation in this State. 
These are the men who made county option the 
paramount issue, and now let us meet the issue that 
they have made paramount. 

Sometimes you read in the papers that this ques- 
tion is not acute. There is one peculiarity about 
it: it is only acute on one side. The men opposed 
to county option can not understand why anybody 
wants it, but they can understand why every per- 
son who is opposed to it should leave the Demo- 
cratic party if the party declares for it. Did you 
ever know a question so one-sided? I affirm that 
county option is a Democratic proposition ; I refuse 
to go to the brewers to learn either constitutional 
law or the principles of the Democratic party. Do 
you doubt that this State ean vote on the liquor 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 337 

question? Do you doubt that a city can vote on 
the liquor question? Of course you do not. Why 
can not a county, larger than a city, but smaller 
than a State, vote on the liquor question? Is it 
democratic for a State to vote on it, and democratic 
for a town to vote on it, but undemocratic for a 
county to vote on it ? Who will say so ? 

You can not find an argument against county 
option from a Democratic standpoint. Either a 
majority of the county or the minority will rule. 
And who says it is democratic to have a minority 
decide what ought to be done in a county against 
the protest of the majority? If you desire Demo- 
cratic authority consider the States that have coun- 
ty option. Texas, that gave me my largest majority 
in three campaigns — Texas has it. Is it undemo- 
cratic? If so, why did Texas adopt it? Missouri 
has it. Is Missouri Democracy a kind that you 
can sneer at? It is true they exempt towns of a 
certain size, but remember Missouri has the county 
unit. Ohio has it, too, and I remind you that Ohio 
has large cities. I do not want to hurt the pride of 
Omaha, and yet there are several cities in Ohio as 
large as Omaha. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, 
Columbus, Youngstown, Springfield, not all these 
are as large as Omaha, but they are of considerable 
size. There are a great many of these cities and 
yet they have county option. 

Tell me you can not have county option where 
Germans are numerous? Do they not have Ger- 
mans in Ohio? Is there any State that has more 
Germans ? Is there any city other than Milwaukee 
more known as a German city than Cincinnati, 



338 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

Ohio? And yet they not only have county option, 
but the Democratic convention that met the other 
day did not dare condemn it. It has been adopted 
in more ithan half the counties. I know Germans 
who are not interested in the saloon question be- 
yond all other questions. Four German ministers 
worked for the closing of every saloon in the city 
of Lincoln, and I have talked with Germans who 
feel as much interest in protecting the young men 
of their neighborhood from these "man-traps" as 
other Americans. We have no German saloons in this 
State or nation. Ask the German who has come 
from the fatherland and he will tell you that the 
German saloon is different from ours — there is no 
treating there, and there ought to be none here. 
The largest German society in the United States 
has declared against treating. We have a statute 
against it, and yet it is violated in nearly every 
saloon in this State. Give us the German saloon 
and then it will be time to say that the Germans 
are from tradition opposed to the regulation of 
this traffic. Temperance is growing in Germany; 
the Emperor has recently warned the students 
against the evil effects of beer. 

County option is not undemocratic; the time 
has come when you will have to stop saying that it 
is undemocratic to do anything distasteful to the 
liquor interests. A man can be a Democrat in good 
standing without staggering when he walks. The 
Republicans used to question a man's democracy 
if he did not drink. A brewer in Chicago called me 
a degenerate because I am a teetotaller. I contend 
that I can be a good Democrat and yet refuse to 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 339 

put a glass to my lips or to set an example which 
might lead my neighbor to ruin. No, ycu can not 
say it is undemocratic to favor legislation on this 
subject. Democratic States have not only adopted 
county option, but some of them have adopted State 
prohibition. 

It is said that county option is unfair because, 
if the county goes dry all the saloons are closed up, 
but if it goes wet you can still have prohibition in 
the towns and villages. That argument is entirely 
unsound. Did not this State go wet twenty years 
ago? And did not this State, when it went wet, 
still have prohibition in every town that wanted 
it? Why did not the liquor interests demand that 
because it went wet, there should be no prohibition 
anywhere? If it had gone dry, there would have 
been no saloons anywhere. We have a situation 
in this State that is similiar to the situation under 
county option. You say it is unfair in the county 
but not in the State ? You dare not put your argu- 
ment to the test. When we get county option you 
will not be willing to submit it on wbat you call a 
fair basis. Why? Because you want to defeat 
county option with the argument that any town can 
have prohibition if it wants it. 

And why is it not fair to have saloons everywhere 
when a county goes wet ? Because there is nothing 
fair about the saloon ; you do not talk about fair- 
ness and justice when you talk about the saloon. 
The saloon is an outlaw and a nuisance, and it lives 
by sufferance where it lives at all. You do not de- 
fend the saloons as an institution ; you tolerate it, if 
you tolerate it at all, on the theory that if you tried 



340 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

to abolish it you might get something worse. And 
yet the saloons exert more influence in politics than 
ten times as much capital invested in necessary and 
helpful industries. 

Are the farmers not to have any voice in deciding 
the saloon question ? You can not build a slaughter 
house in your block without consulting the people 
around you, because you can not confine the odors 
to your own land, and yet you would establish a 
saloon and fill the air with poison and then say to 
the people who must breathe it and suffer from it, 
that they have no right to protest. When you fight 
county option you ought to have arguments to pre- 
sent, and no arguments have yet been advanced 
against it. The farmers have been taxed without 
representation; they have been taxed to support 
the paupers turned out by the saloons. I was in- 
terested to-night in the indorsement given to the 
eight o'clock closing law; I was on the committee 
and voted for that resolution. I drew the platform 
in Lancaster county, which indorsed the eight 
o'clock law. I am glad that it passed by so large 
a majority, but I ask you who voted for it, how 
could you support the eight o'clock closing law 
and then oppose county option on the ground that 
it interferes with home rule? If you can make an 
argument against county option on the ground that 
it interferes with personal liberty, you can with 
much greater force make an argument against the 
eight o'clock law. Under county option, we say 
to the people in Douglas county that they can de- 
cide for themselves whether they want saloons or 
not, but under the eight o'clock law, we tell them 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 341 

what time to go home. I believe in eight o*clock 
closing, but I believe also in county option, and I 
submit that it is much easier to defend county op- 
tion than it is to defend eight o'clock closing. 

You will find a number of these questions that 
will be interesting when you get beyond Judge Old- 
ham's stage, and commence to study this subject in 
earnest. There are people who talk about this being 
a legitimate business ; well, it depends altogether on 
how you define the word legitimate. I recently met a 
farmer from one of the counties that instructed 
against county option ; he said that -a man came to 
him and asked him to sign a petition for a saloon, and 
he refused on the ground that they did not treat the 
saloon keeper fairly. The man asked him what he 
meant and the following dialogue ensued: "You 
want to start a saloon in this town ? " * ' Yes. * ' * * To 
help the town?" *'Yes." ''To improve business?'* 
''Yes." "To increase trade?" "Yes." "Well 
now if you are going to do all that good for this 
town, I think they ought to give you a subsidy in- 
stead of putting a tax upon you." If the saloon 
is such a good thing for a town, why is it we treat 
it as we do? Why do we require the would-be sa- 
loon keeper to secure a petition? Why do we tell 
him when to open and close, and how many chairs 
he can keep in the room, and require him to give 
bond for all the damage done? Can you not see 
some difference between the saloon and other lines 
of business, and does not this difference justify 
different treatment? County option lets the county 
decide whether to license the sale of liquor or not. 

I will go a step further and ask you to bear in 



342 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

mind that if the people who can have saloons under 
county option are not satisfied with that, but insist 
on forcing them upon counties that do not want 
them, they will arouse resentment. I know of 
nothing that will hasten State prohibition more 
than to have the liquor interests contend that a 
county can not be dry even when the people want 
it to be dry. 

The issue is here and we must meet it. No party 
is big enough to govern a State that is not big 
enough to decide questions when they arise. This 
question must be decided, and you must throw your 
influence one way or another. Do not deceive your- 
selves by thinking that you can avoid a decision by 
silence. Do not deceive yourselves by thinking that 
you can refer this to the districts and escape re- 
sponsibility. The Grovernor must act, and it makes 
la great deal of difference whether we have the in- 
(fluenee of the State convention and the State or- 
ganization in favor of county option or against it. 
As one who favors county option I am not willing 
ito have the influence of our State ticket, of our 
State committee, and of our entire campaign thrown 
against every Democrat who is a candidate in a 
district on a county option platform. I do not want 
every Democrat who stands for county option to be 
branded as undemocratic, and as opposed to the 
policy of his party. 

More than that, there is now only one way to 
get this question out of politics and fight our cam- 
paign on national issues. Our platform says that 
the tide is turning toward Democratic victory, and 
that we can win on national issues. If so, then 



THE LIQUOR .QUESTION 3-1.3 

victory is within our reach. The Republican party 
has acted ; the Populist party has ac/ted ; if we act 
with them it is not an issue. You can no longer 
insist that you want to make this fight on national 
issues if you refuse to remove this question from 
the campaign. You have a chance to make the cam- 
paign on national issues. If instead of that you 
prefer to make it on the liquor question then cease 
talking about national issues being paramount. You 
are to decide whether this question is more import- 
ant than these national questions that will become 
paramount as soon as this question is disposed of. 
I believe it is expedient for the party to do this; 
that it promises victory to do it, and I see no other 
path that gives so much promise of victory. 

But I shall put it on higher ground ; it is more 
than expedient — it is right. The Democratic party 
can afford to do right; the Democratic party can 
afford to take the moral side of a moral question. 
The majority report says it is a moral question and 
there is but one moral side to a moral question. 
Which side will you take? Will you put the Demo- 
cratic party on the moral side, or will you put it on 
the immoral side? Learn from the popularity of 
the eight o 'clock closing law the strength of a moral 
issue. A majority of the Democrats in both houses 
voted against it, and yet by an overwhelming vote 
this convention commends the Governor for signing 
it. 

I am interested in the Democratic party, I owe 
to the Democratic party all that I am, or have, or 
hope to be. I expect to live many years 'to fight 
its battles ; I want to strengthen that party, and to 



344 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

be strong it must keep step with the marching spirit 
of the times. You must remember that temperance 
is growing in this country and in the world. Since 
twenty years ago, when we last acted upon the sub- 
ject, many States have declared for State exclusion 
of the liquor traffic, others have declared for county 
option, others have declared for township option, 
but here stands Nebraska chained to its law of 
twenty years ago, and the people who passed it not 
only will not enforce it, but disobey it at every op- 
portunity. Let Nebraska understand that the world 
is moving forward and not backward. 

We must appeal to the young men with their 
ideals, their hopes and their aspirations; we can 
not hope to win them if we take the liquor side 
of this question. When a party takes a position on 
a new question there is a certain realignment. At 
this time there will be less than usual if all parties 
take the same stand. If it is made an issue, we 
shall lose some and gain some. No one can tell 
whether our losses will exceed our gains, but I am 
not willing to trade men who think so much of the 
home that they are not willing to march under the 
standard of the liquor interests, for men who come 
simply for a drink and will leave us when the barrel 
is empty. If we drive out good Democrats and se- 
cure in return men drawn merely by appetite — 
men who put the love of liquor above principles of 
government, we shall be weaker when the next 
moral question is to be met. I appeal to you. Demo- 
crats, let us be strong now that we may be stronger 
to-morrow to meet the issues of to-morrow. 

Pardon me for speaking at length, but I have 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 345 

not had a chance to speak to you on this subject 
before, and I wanted to present these thoughts. 
They are on my mind and on my heart. 

Nebraska's Democracy has been at the front for 
nearly two score years. Look back over that record ; 
it is a record to be proud of. The question of 
bimetallism came up and Nebraska took the people 's 
side, the side of justice ; she was not afraid, and her 
courage made her prominent among the States. The 
trust question came up and Nebraska took the peo- 
ple's side, the side of justice; and we have seen 
the Eepublicans of the nation forming upon the 
line that we established. We took our position in 
favor of railroad legislation, the people's side and 
the side of justice ; we saw the Democratic party of 
the nation take that position, and we saw Republi- 
cans adopting our policy. We declared for the 
election of Senators by the people; we took the 
people's side, and the side of justice; and we have 
seen three national conventions of our party indorse 
it, and the Republican candidate for President ad- 
mitted two years ago that he favored it himself. 
On the income tax question, we took the people's 
side, the side of justice, and we have seen a Re- 
publican President take the plank out of the Demo- 
cratic platform and put it through Congress. We 
have seen a Republican Senator from our own State 
embody the Democratic plank in a constitutional 
amendment, and we see that amendment ratified 
by State after State. 

The question of imperialism came up, and we 
took the people's side, the side of justice, and now 
Republicans admit that we can not forever hold 



346 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 

those people in bondage, that a colonial policy can 
not forever be maintained. The guarantee of bank 
deposits became an issue and we took the people's 
side, the side of justice. We have seen three States, 
Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, besides Nebraska, 
adopt the Democratic idea and we have seen the 
Republican party of the nation forced to adopt the 
postal savings bank bill as an alternative — and by 
adopting it, admit that after fifty years of power 
they have been unable to make the depositors secure. 
The question of campaign contributions came up, 
and we took the people's side, the side of justice, 
and we have seen Nebraska lead off, adopting pub- 
licity before election ; we have seen the Republican 
house indorse Nebraska's position. 

On the tariff question we took the people's side, 
the side of justice, and we have seen the Republican 
party brought to its knees by the insurgent revolt 
against the high tariff policy. Cannonism came up, 
and we took the side of the people, the side of jus- 
tice, and there were enough insurgents in Congress 
to help us to so modify the rules as to put the 
Speaker off the committee on rules and increase 
the size of the committee, so as to make it represent 
the entire country. Look at Nebraska's standard! 
In every battle it has been on the firing line. By 
your command I have borne it ; I have been proud 
of you, and proud of these things for which we 
have fought. Examine that standard; there is no 
stain upon it ; it has never been trailed in the dust 
since you gave it to me. I shall not lower it now. 
We never espoused a more righteous cause than that 
which now appeals to us ; we never faced an enemy 



THE LIQUOR QUESTION 347 

more deserving of attack than that which is at- 
tempting to corrupt our party and control our 
State. If a retreat is to be sounded, it must be 
sounded by another. I shall not do it — never, 
never, never! 



f 



I 






